Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://doi.org/10.25358/openscience-10052
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWeimer, Andreas Michael-
dc.contributor.authorBerthold, Rainer-
dc.contributor.authorSchamberger, Christian-
dc.contributor.authorVieth, Thomas-
dc.contributor.authorBalser, Gerd-
dc.contributor.authorBerthold, Svenja-
dc.contributor.authorStein, Stephan-
dc.contributor.authorMüller, Lukas-
dc.contributor.authorMerkel, Daniel-
dc.contributor.authorRecker, Florian-
dc.contributor.authorSchmidmaier, Gerhard-
dc.contributor.authorRink, Maximilian-
dc.contributor.authorKünzel, Julian-
dc.contributor.authorKloeckner, Roman-
dc.contributor.authorWeimer, Johannes-
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-19T10:44:10Z-
dc.date.available2024-02-19T10:44:10Z-
dc.date.issued2023-
dc.identifier.urihttps://openscience.ub.uni-mainz.de/handle/20.500.12030/10070-
dc.description.abstractBackground: ultrasound diagnostics have a broad spectrum of applications, including among diseases of the musculoskeletal system. Accordingly, it is important for the users to have a well-founded and up-to-date education in this dynamic examination method. The right balance between online and in-class teaching still needs to be explored in this context. Certifying institutions are currently testing digitally transformed teaching concepts to provide more evidence. Methods: this study compared two musculoskeletal ultrasound blended learning models. Model A was more traditional, with a focus on in-person teaching, while Model B was more digitally oriented with compulsory webinar. Both used e-learning for preparation. Participants completed evaluations using a seven-point Likert scale, later converted to a 0–1 scale. Digital teaching media (e-learning) were used for preparation in both courses. Results: the analysis included n = 41 evaluations for Model A and n = 30 for Model B. Model B received a better overall assessment (median: 0.73 vs. 0.69, p = 0.05). Model B also excelled in “course preparation” (p = 0.02), “webinar quality” (p = 0.04), and “course concept” (p = 0.04). The “gain of competence” (p = 0.82), “learning materials” (p = 0.30), and “tutor quality” (p = 0.28) showed no significant differences. Conclusion: participants favorably assessed blended learning in ultrasound teaching. Certifying institutions should consider accrediting models that combine digital methods (e.g., internet lectures/webinars) and materials (e.g., e-learning) with hands-on ultrasound training. Further research is needed to validate these subjective findings for a stronger evidential basis.en_GB
dc.language.isoengde
dc.rightsCC BY*
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/*
dc.subject.ddc610 Medizinde_DE
dc.subject.ddc610 Medical sciencesen_GB
dc.titleDigital transformation in musculoskeletal ultrasound : acceptability of blended learningen_GB
dc.typeZeitschriftenaufsatzde
dc.identifier.doihttp://doi.org/10.25358/openscience-10052-
jgu.type.contenttypeScientific articlede
jgu.type.dinitypearticleen_GB
jgu.type.versionPublished versionde
jgu.type.resourceTextde
jgu.organisation.departmentFB 04 Medizinde
jgu.organisation.number2700-
jgu.organisation.nameJohannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz-
jgu.rights.accessrightsopenAccess-
jgu.journal.titleDiagnosticsde
jgu.journal.volume13de
jgu.journal.issue20de
jgu.pages.alternative3272de
jgu.publisher.year2023-
jgu.publisher.nameMDPIde
jgu.publisher.placeBaselde
jgu.publisher.issn2075-4418de
jgu.organisation.placeMainz-
jgu.subject.ddccode610de
jgu.publisher.doi10.3390/diagnostics13203272de
jgu.organisation.rorhttps://ror.org/023b0x485-
jgu.subject.dfgMultidisciplinaryde
Appears in collections:DFG-491381577-G

Files in This Item:
  File Description SizeFormat
Thumbnail
digital_transformation_in_mus-20240205171836318.pdf1.99 MBAdobe PDFView/Open