↓ Skip to main content

Implementing blended learning in emergency airway management training: a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Emergency Medicine, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
168 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Implementing blended learning in emergency airway management training: a randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Emergency Medicine, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12873-018-0152-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Madeleine Huei Tze Kho, Keng Sheng Chew, Muhaimin Noor Azhar, Mohd Lotfi Hamzah, Kee Man Chuah, Aida Bustam, Hiang Chuan Chan

Abstract

While emergency airway management training is conventionally conducted via face-to-face learning (F2FL) workshops, there are inherent cost, time, place and manpower limitations in running such workshops. Blended learning (BL) refers to the systematic integration of online and face-to-face learning aimed to facilitate complex thinking skills and flexible participation at a reduced financial, time and manpower cost. This study was conducted to evaluate its effectiveness in emergency airway management training. A single-center prospective randomised controlled trial involving 30 doctors from Sarawak General Hospital, Malaysia was conducted from September 2016 to February 2017 to compare the effectiveness of BL versus F2FL for emergency airway management training. Participants in the BL arm were given a period of 12 days to go through the online materials in a learning management system while those in the F2FL arm attended a-day of face-to-face lectures (8 h). Participants from both arms then attended a day of hands-on session consisting of simulation skills training with airway manikins. Pre- and post-tests in knowledge and practical skills were administered. E-learning experience and the perception towards BL among participants in the BL arm were also assessed. Significant improvements in post-test scores as compared to pre-test scores were noted for participants in both BL and F2FL arms for knowledge, practical, and total scores. The degree of increment between the BL group and the F2FL arms for all categories were not significantly different (total scores: 35 marks, inter-quartile range (IQR) 15.0 - 41.0 vs. 31 marks, IQR 24.0 - 41.0, p = 0.690; theory scores: 18 marks, IQR 9 - 24 vs. 19 marks, IQR 15 - 20, p = 0.992; practical scores: 11 marks, IQR 5 -18 vs. 10 marks, IQR 9 - 20, p = 0.461 respectively). The overall perception towards BL was positive. Blended learning is as effective as face-to-face learning for emergency airway management training of junior doctors, suggesting that blended learning may be a feasible alternative to face-to-face learning for such skill training in emergency departments. Malaysian National Medical Research NMRR-16-696-30190 . Registered 28 April 2016.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 168 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 12%
Researcher 14 8%
Lecturer 13 8%
Student > Bachelor 12 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 5%
Other 36 21%
Unknown 64 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 12%
Social Sciences 10 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Computer Science 5 3%
Other 20 12%
Unknown 69 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 February 2018.
All research outputs
#13,578,269
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from BMC Emergency Medicine
#394
of 759 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,338
of 473,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Emergency Medicine
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 759 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 473,640 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.