A comparison between the effectiveness of a gamified approach with the conventional approach in point-of-care ultrasonographic training

• Main Authors: Lai, Aaron Kuo Huo, Noor Azhar, Abdul Muhaimin bin, Bustam, Aidawati binti, Tiong, Xun Ting, Chan, Hiang Chuan, Ahmad, Rashidi, Chew, Keng Sheng
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Springer Nature 2020
• Subjects: LC Special aspects of education; LC5201 Education extension. Adult education. Continuing education; R Medicine (General)
• Online Access: http://ir.unimas.my/id/eprint/31249/2/s12909-020-02173-7.pdf; http://ir.unimas.my/id/eprint/31249/; https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-020-02173-7

Background Although gamification increases user engagement, its effectiveness in point-of-care ultrasonographic training has yet to be fully established. This study was conducted with the primary outcome of evaluating its effectiveness in point-of-care ultrasonographic training as compared to conventional approach. Methods Participants consisting of junior doctors were randomized into either the (1) gamified or the (2) conventional educational approach for ultrasonographic training. Results A total of 31 junior doctors participated in this study (16 participants in gamified arm, 15 in the conventional arm after one participant from the conventional arm dropped out due to work commitment). Two-way mixed ANOVA test showed that there was no statistically significant interaction between the types of educational approach and time of testing (pre-test, post-test, 2 months post-training) for both theoretical knowledge score and practical skills score, with F(2, 58) = 39.6, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.4 and F(2, 58) = 3.06, p = 0.06, partial η2 = 0.095, respectively. For theoretical knowledge score, pairwise comparisons showed that the mean 2 months post-training scores (20.28 +/− 0.70, 95% CI 18.87–21.69) and mean post-test scores (20.27 +/− 0.65, 95% CI 18.94–21.60) were better than the pre-test scores (12.99 +/− 0.50, 95% CI 11.97–14.00) with p-values < 0.001 for both comparisons respectively. Similarly, for practical skill score, pairwise comparisons showed that the mean 2 months post-training scores (20.28 +/− 0.70, 95% CI 18.87–21.69) and mean post-test scores (20.27 +/− 0.65, 95% CI 18.94–21.60) were also better than the pre-test scores (12.99 +/− 0.50, 95% CI 11.97–14.00) with p-values < 0.001 for both comparisons respectively. Participants in the gamification arm generally perceived the various game elements and game mechanics as useful in contributing and motivating them to learn ultrasonography. Conclusions Gamification approach could be an effective alternative to conventional approach in point-of-care ultrasonographic training.