Marie Regad, Alexandre Baudet, Anais Colas, Sophie Rodari, Arnaud Florentin
{"title":"How to Teach Medical and Dental Students About Infection Prevention and Control? Comparison of Two Learning Methods.","authors":"Marie Regad, Alexandre Baudet, Anais Colas, Sophie Rodari, Arnaud Florentin","doi":"10.1111/eje.13067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aims of this study were to evaluate medical and dental students' evolution of knowledge and satisfaction after infection prevention and control (IPC) training using two methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We enrolled second-year medical and dental students who were naive to IPC knowledge. The students were randomly assigned to two groups (A and B). Group A followed a course in the conference room that included a slideshow with videos and interactive questions to captivate students and measure their level of understanding. Group B followed a course in the classroom with direct demonstrations and opportunities for students to practice. Only experienced IPC physicians were involved. The participants completed a standardised questionnaire about IPC before and after the teaching interventions to identify changes in knowledge. The participants were also asked to complete a satisfaction survey.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 226 second-year medical and dental students were enrolled. Students in both groups showed significant improvements in their knowledge. The relative change in knowledge (RCK) was 1.71 ± 1.20 (p < 0.0001) for Group A and 1.75 ± 1.15 (p < 0.0001) for Group B. The RCK was not significantly different between the two groups in terms of overall or per-topic scores (p > 0.05). Only 73 (32.3%) patients completed the satisfaction questionnaire. Satisfaction scores (out of 5) were significantly higher in Group B than in Group A on overall dimensions (4.59 vs. 4.40, p = 0.02), specifically learning objectives (4.83 vs. 4.37, p < 0.001) and interest (4.73 vs. 4.42, p = 0.03).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The two learning methods effectively improved student knowledge of IPC. These results suggest that, for IPC training and for students who are not yet comfortable with care, face-to-face practice in the classroom is more appreciated.</p>","PeriodicalId":50488,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Dental Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Dental Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.13067","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: The aims of this study were to evaluate medical and dental students' evolution of knowledge and satisfaction after infection prevention and control (IPC) training using two methods.
Methods: We enrolled second-year medical and dental students who were naive to IPC knowledge. The students were randomly assigned to two groups (A and B). Group A followed a course in the conference room that included a slideshow with videos and interactive questions to captivate students and measure their level of understanding. Group B followed a course in the classroom with direct demonstrations and opportunities for students to practice. Only experienced IPC physicians were involved. The participants completed a standardised questionnaire about IPC before and after the teaching interventions to identify changes in knowledge. The participants were also asked to complete a satisfaction survey.
Results: A total of 226 second-year medical and dental students were enrolled. Students in both groups showed significant improvements in their knowledge. The relative change in knowledge (RCK) was 1.71 ± 1.20 (p < 0.0001) for Group A and 1.75 ± 1.15 (p < 0.0001) for Group B. The RCK was not significantly different between the two groups in terms of overall or per-topic scores (p > 0.05). Only 73 (32.3%) patients completed the satisfaction questionnaire. Satisfaction scores (out of 5) were significantly higher in Group B than in Group A on overall dimensions (4.59 vs. 4.40, p = 0.02), specifically learning objectives (4.83 vs. 4.37, p < 0.001) and interest (4.73 vs. 4.42, p = 0.03).
Conclusion: The two learning methods effectively improved student knowledge of IPC. These results suggest that, for IPC training and for students who are not yet comfortable with care, face-to-face practice in the classroom is more appreciated.
期刊介绍:
The aim of the European Journal of Dental Education is to publish original topical and review articles of the highest quality in the field of Dental Education. The Journal seeks to disseminate widely the latest information on curriculum development teaching methodologies assessment techniques and quality assurance in the fields of dental undergraduate and postgraduate education and dental auxiliary personnel training. The scope includes the dental educational aspects of the basic medical sciences the behavioural sciences the interface with medical education information technology and distance learning and educational audit. Papers embodying the results of high-quality educational research of relevance to dentistry are particularly encouraged as are evidence-based reports of novel and established educational programmes and their outcomes.