The Karma system is currently undergoing maintenance (Monday, January 29, 2018).
The maintenance period has been extended to 8PM EST.
Karma Credits will not be available for redeeming during maintenance.
Technology, innovation and openess in medical education in the information age
JMIR Medical Education (JME) is a Pubmed-indexed, peer-reviewed journal with focus on technology, innovation and openess in medical education. Another focus is on how to train health professionals in the use of digital tools. We publish original research, reviews, viewpoint and policy papers on innovation and technology in medical education. As an open access journal we have a special interest in open and free tools and digitial learning objects for medical education, and urge authors to make their tools and learning objects freely available (we may also publish them as Multimedia Appendix). We also invite submissions of non-conventional articles (eg, open medical education material and software resources that are not yet evaluated but free for others to use/implement).
In our "Students' Corner", we invite students and trainees in the health professions to submit short essays and viewpoints on all aspects of medical education, but in particular suggestions on how to improve medical education, and suggestions for new technologies, applications and approaches (no article processing fees).
A sister journal of the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR), a leading eHealth journal (Impact Factor 2017: 4.671), the scope of JME is broader and includes non-Internet approaches to improve education, training and assessment for medical professionals and allied health professions.
Articles published in JME will be submitted to PubMed and Pubmed Central. JME is open access.
Right click to copy or hit: ctrl+c (cmd+c on mac)
This manuscript needs more reviewersPeer-Review Me
Background: Online education is one of the leading learning pedagogies in health professions education. Online students have access to a multitude of opinions, knowledge, and resources, but communicat...
Background: Online education is one of the leading learning pedagogies in health professions education. Online students have access to a multitude of opinions, knowledge, and resources, but communication between students in online courses is complicated. Technology adds a filter that makes it difficult to decipher the emotions behind words or to read non-verbal cues. This is a concern because students benefit more from online classes when they have a high perception of social presence. One strategy to enhance social presence is to employ video-based assignments that encourage students to interact with each other. Objective: This case study examines the impact of video-based assignments on health professional students, and their experiences with the technology. This study aims at providing information to the growing body of literature about strategies to develop online social presence. Methods: A total of 88 students from various nursing programs participated in the study. This case study used a control group of 36 students who submitted written-based assignments (WBAs) only and an experimental group of 52 students who submitted video-based assignments (VBAs) in addition to WBAs. Students in both groups participated in a weekly survey that consisted of four open-ended questions and three Likert items on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree. The social presence questionnaire assessed by the experimental group, consisted of 16 items and a 5-point Likert scale for which higher scores represented higher levels of social presence. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and qualitative responses were analyzed using content analysis. Results: There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to the program in which students were enrolled (F=.364, P =.54). In terms of student engagement, no statistically significant difference between the two groups was found (t =.964, P =.35). However, the experimental group’s average score was higher (4.29±.11) than that of the control group (4.21±.14). In comparing the total number of responses to the weekly engagement survey, 88% (287/326) were reported to as either strongly agree or agree in the control group while 93% (525/564) in the experimental group. There was no statistically significant difference between VBAs and WBAs weeks (t =1.40, P =.21) in the experimental group. Most students reported a positive experience using VBAs, but technical issues were barriers to embracing this new approach to learning. Conclusions: This study reported on the students’ experiences with the technology, social presence, and engagement in the online course. Social presence and engagement are positively associated with student learning and satisfaction in online courses. Suggestions are offered to enhance online social presence that could generate better learning outcomes and student experiences.
Background: Healthcare providers are often called to respond to in-flight medical emergencies (IFMEs), but lack familiarity with expected supplies, interventions, and ground medical control support. O...
Background: Healthcare providers are often called to respond to in-flight medical emergencies (IFMEs), but lack familiarity with expected supplies, interventions, and ground medical control support. Objective: The objective of this study was to determine whether a smartphone application (airRx) improves responses to simulated IFMEs. Methods: This was a randomized study of volunteer, non-emergency resident physician subjects who managed simulated IFMEs with or without the app. Simulations took place in a mock-up cabin in the simulation center. Standardized participants (SPs) played the patient, family member, and flight attendant roles. Live, non-blinded rating was used with occasional video review for data clarification. Subjects participated in two simulated IFMEs (shortness of breath-SOB, syncope-SYN) and were evaluated with checklists (CL) and global ratings scales (GRS). CL item success rates, key critical action times, GRS, and pre-post simulation confidence in managing IFMEs were compared. Results: There were 29 subjects in each arm (app versus control) of the study. Mean percentages of completed CL items for the app versus control groups were 56.1 ± 10.3 vs. 49.4 ± 7.4 for SOB (p < 0.05) and 58 ± 8.1 vs. 49.8 ± 7.0 for SYN (p < 0.05). The GRS improved with the app for SYN case (3.14 ± 0.89 vs control 2.6 ± 0.97, p < 0.05), but not the SOB case (2.90 ± 0.97 vs control 2.81 ± 0.80, p = 0.43). For timed checklist items, the app group contacted ground support faster for both cases, but the control group was faster to complete vitals and basic exam. Both groups indicated higher confidence in their post-simulation surveys, but the app group demonstrated a greater increase in this measure. Conclusions: Use of the airRx app prompted some actions, but delayed others. Simulated performance and feedback suggest the app is a useful adjunct for managing IFMEs. Clinical Trial: Not applicable