Physicians learning CPR via IBL required substantially less time than the six-hour traditional lecture¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2013 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Participants in the IBL group required 40.2% less time to learn the content than the TCL group. → Hemmati 2013

Evidence¶

Hemmati 2013¶

Hemmati, N., Omrani, S., & Hemmati, N. (2013). A comparison of internet-based learning and traditional classroom lecture to learn CPR for continuing medical education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(1). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1006264

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Self-reported study time for the IBL group of 40 physicians, covering pretest, content, and post-test at self-pace, compared in the discussion with the 6-hour traditional lecture; the discussion reports "40.2% less time". No effect size was printed.

"The mean time for Internet based CME group was 145 minutes ranging from 125 minutes to 182 minutes."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Physicians in Internet-based CPR CME report significantly higher satisfaction than physicians in traditional classroom lecture — related
• Internet-based learning and traditional lecture produce no significant difference in CPR knowledge gains for physicians — related
• Both IBL and TCL groups show significant pre-to-post knowledge increases in CPR learning — related
• Physicians learning via the model-based e-learning program scored significantly higher on the posttest than physicians receiving lecture-based teaching — related
• The e-learning group needed far less time for reading and learning than the traditional group — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Demonstration-based CPR training tended to produce more accurate performance than lecture-based approaches — related