Web-based vs. Face to Face Learning of Diabetes Management The Results of a Comparative Trial of Educational Methods

Web-based vs Face to Face Learning of Diabetes Management: The Results of a Comparative Trial of Educational Methods John M Wiecha, MD, MPH Corresponding Author Director, Predoctoral Education and Director, Distance Education for Health Associate Professor Department of Family Medicine Boston University School of Medicine Dowling 5S Boston Medical Center BMC Place, Boston MA 02118 John.Wiecha@bmc.org 617 414 4465 Fax: 617 414 3345 VK Chetty, PhD Professor, Department of Family Medicine Boston University School of Medicine Peter F Shaw, PhD Associate Director, Office of Medical Education Boston University School of Medicine Supported by: The Robert Wood Johnson Generalist Physician Faculty Scholars program, and by HRSA Training in Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry Grant # D56HP03355-02-00, both to Dr Wiecha Word Count: 2543 (excluding abstract) Index medicus words: Diabetes mellitus Computer-assisted instruction Education, Distance Education, medical Background and Objectives Relatively little is known about the effectiveness of web-based learning (WBL) in medical education, and how it compares to conventional methods This study examined the impact of an interactive, online curriculum in a rd year medical school family medicine clerkship on students’ ability to create a management plan for a patient newly diagnosed with type diabetes, and how the online curriculum compared to a conventionally taught method Methods The online course included integrated activities: 1) self-study modules; 2) a patient case-study; and 3) a moderated discussion board for posting and discussing patient care plans The WBL curriculum was compared to smallgroup case-based sessions with a faculty facilitator Students completed a test case pre and post clerkship Results Among standard-of-care diabetic management interventions not ordered on the pretest, 38% were subsequently correctly ordered by WBL students on the posttest, vs 33% by students in the comparison group (P