METHODS: The study sampled year 1 medical students of cohorts 2013 and 2014. The year 1 medical students in 2013 were taught gross anatomy of the heart by didactic classroom lectures while those in 2014 were taught with digital lectures using the same content. A review session was conducted for the 2014 cohort. A 19-item survey was distributed amongst students to investigate their attitudes and feedback. The data were analysed using SPSS software.
RESULTS: The 2014 cohort had a mean score of 47.65 for short essay questions and 51.19 for multiple choice questions, while the 2013 cohort scored an average of 36.80 for short essay questions and 49.22 for multiple choice questions. The difference in scores for each type of question was found to be significant. Using a 5-point Likert scale, students gave an average of 4.11 when asked if they liked the teaching and learning process and would like it to be applied further.
CONCLUSION: The results of the study provide strong evidence that the digital teaching and learning process was well received by students and could also lead to improved performance. Digital lectures can provide a satisfactory substitute for classroom lectures to teach gross anatomy, thus providing flexibility in learning and efficient learning, whilst also freeing lecture slots to promote mastery learning.
METHODS: An online/face-to-face, questionnaire-based survey of respiratory specialists and primary care physicians from eight Asian countries/region was carried out. The survey explored asthma control, inhaler selection, technique and use; physician-patient communications and asthma education. Inclusion criteria were >50% of practice time spent on direct patient care; and treated >30 patients with asthma per month, of which >60% were aged >12 years.
RESULTS: REALISE Asia (Phase 2) involved 375 physicians with average 15.9(±6.8) years of clinical experience. 89.1% of physicians reporting use of guidelines estimated that 53.2% of their patients have well-controlled (GINA-defined) asthma. Top consideration for inhaler choice was asthma severity (82.4%) and lowest, socio-economic status (32.5%). Then 54.7% of physicians checked their patients' inhaler techniques during consultations but 28.2(±19.1)% of patients were using their inhalers incorrectly; 21.1-57.9% of physicians could spot improper inhaler techniques in video demonstrations. And 79.6% of physicians believed combination inhalers could increase adherence because of convenience (53.7%), efficacy (52.7%) and usability (18.9%). Initial and follow-up consultations took 16.8(±8.4) and 9.2(±5.3) minutes, respectively. Most (85.1%) physicians used verbal conversations and least (24.5%), video demonstrations of inhaler use; 56.8% agreed that patient attitudes influenced their treatment approach.
CONCLUSION: Physicians and patients have different views of 'well-controlled' asthma. Although physicians informed patients about asthma and inhaler usage, they overestimated actual usage and patients' knowledge was sub-optimal. Physician-patient interactions can be augmented with understanding of patient attitudes, visual aids and ancillary support to perform physical demonstrations to improve treatment outcomes.