[Impact of an elective course in evidence-based clinical decision-making on competencies and attitudes of medical students: A pilot study]
Nikoletta Lippert,Luca Frank,Kathrin Schnitzius,Birgit Maria Stubner,Thomas Kühlein,Marco Roos,Piet van der Keylen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2021.02.010
Abstract:Background: Evidence-based medicine (EbM) as a teaching subject is increasingly taken into account in the Master Plan 2020. To date, neither theoretical requirements nor practical applications of EbM have been consistently implemented in the clinical curriculum. To fill this gap, a digital and tutor-based EbM course has been developed. The aim is to identify the student characteristics (statistical competence, Need for Cognition (NFC), work and experience patterns (AVEM), diagnostic uncertainty) of the first cohort in order to ensure successful course implementation and to prepare future doctors for their role as mediators of health literacy using EbM methods. Methods: The long-term study started in the summer term 2019 with 10 medical students during their clinical training. The measurements were conducted before (t0) and after course attendance (t1). Socio-demographic variables were taken at t0, the Quick Risk Test, PRU questionnaire, the NFC scale and the AVEM were collected at t0 and t1. Results: Half of the students started their doctoral thesis before attending the course. The first test results of the Quick Risk Test (t0) were between 50 % and 90 % and at t1 between 60 % and 100 %. The students showed high scores on the NFC scale (X¯=4.6, SD=0.52, Δ X¯ t0 - t1=0.1) and medium scores on the Perfectionism scale (X¯=3.8, SD=0.51, Δ X¯ t0 - t1=0.1), Resignation Tendency (X¯=3.8, SD=1.17, Δ X¯ t0 - t1=0.1) and on the scale Aggressive Problem Solving (X¯=3.9, SD=1.06, Δ X¯ t0 - t1=0.2). They achieved high levels of Anxiety Due to Diagnostic Uncertainty (X¯=4.8, SD=0.69, Δ X¯ t0 - t1=0.4) and on the scale Concern about Poor Outcomes (X¯=3.9, SD=1.54, Δ X¯ t0 - t1=0.6). The scale Restraint in Disclosing Uncertainty to Patients was more pronounced than the scale Restraint in Disclosing Errors to Physicians (X¯=3.5, SD=0.93, Δ X¯ t0 - t1=-0.3 compared to X¯=2.3, SD=1.20, Δ X¯ t0 - t1=0.1). Discussion: Statistical competence improved with course attendance, with only one student being able to correctly answer all items at t1. NFC and AVEM were strongly expressed and were not very sensitive to change in the sample. The greatest changes were observed on the scales of concern about poor results and fear of diagnostic uncertainty, both of which decreased with course participation. Conclusion: In the long term, the development of a new measuring instrument to assess EbM competencies instead of the Quick Risk Test is conceivable. The longitudinal design will also enable us to make causal interpretations and to track changes in students' competence feelings, behaviour and attitudes.