Display options
Cite
Alyami H, Alawami M, Lyndon M, et al. Impact of Using a 3D Visual Metaphor Serious Game to Teach History-Taking Content to Medical Students: Longitudinal Mixed Methods Pilot Study. JMIR Serious Games. 2019;7(3):e13748doi: 10.2196/13748.
Alyami, H., Alawami, M., Lyndon, M., Alyami, M., Coomarasamy, C., Henning, M., Hill, A., & Sundram, F. (2019). Impact of Using a 3D Visual Metaphor Serious Game to Teach History-Taking Content to Medical Students: Longitudinal Mixed Methods Pilot Study. JMIR serious games, 7(3), e13748. https://doi.org/10.2196/13748
Alyami, Hussain, et al. "Impact of Using a 3D Visual Metaphor Serious Game to Teach History-Taking Content to Medical Students: Longitudinal Mixed Methods Pilot Study." JMIR serious games vol. 7,3 (2019): e13748. doi: https://doi.org/10.2196/13748
Alyami H, Alawami M, Lyndon M, Alyami M, Coomarasamy C, Henning M, Hill A, Sundram F. Impact of Using a 3D Visual Metaphor Serious Game to Teach History-Taking Content to Medical Students: Longitudinal Mixed Methods Pilot Study. JMIR Serious Games. 2019 Sep 26;7(3):e13748. doi: 10.2196/13748. PMID: 31573895; PMCID: PMC6788337.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

JMIR Serious Games. 2019 Sep 26;7(3):e13748. doi: 10.2196/13748.

Impact of Using a 3D Visual Metaphor Serious Game to Teach History-Taking Content to Medical Students: Longitudinal Mixed Methods Pilot Study.

JMIR serious games

Hussain Alyami, Mohammed Alawami, Mataroria Lyndon, Mohsen Alyami, Christin Coomarasamy, Marcus Henning, Andrew Hill, Frederick Sundram

Affiliations

  1. South Auckland Clinical Campus, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
  2. College of Medicine, Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia.
  3. Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand.
  4. Middlemore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand.

PMID: 31573895 PMCID: PMC6788337 DOI: 10.2196/13748

Abstract

BACKGROUND: History taking is a key component of clinical practice; however, this skill is often poorly performed by students and doctors.

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to determine whether Metaphoria, a 3D serious game (SG), is superior to another electronic medium (PDF text file) in learning the history-taking content of a single organ system (cardiac).

METHODS: In 2015, a longitudinal mixed methods (quantitative and qualitative) pilot study was conducted over multiple sampling time points (10 weeks) on a group of undergraduate medical students at The University of Auckland Medical School, New Zealand. Assessors involved in the study were blinded to group allocation. From an initial sample of 83, a total of 46 medical students were recruited. Participants were assigned to either a PDF group (n=19) or a game group (n=27). In total, 1 participant left the PDF group after allocation was revealed and was excluded. A total of 24 students in the game group and 14 students in the PDF group completed follow-up 7 weeks later. Using an iterative design process for over a year, with input from a variety of clinical disciplines, a cardiac history-taking game and PDF file were designed and informed by Cognitive Load Theory. Each group completed its intervention in 40 min. A total of 3 levels of Kirkpatrick training evaluation model were examined using validated questionnaires: affective (perception and satisfaction), cognitive (knowledge gains and cognitive load), and behavioral attitudes (Objective Structured Clinical Exam) as well as qualitative assessment. A priori hypotheses were formulated before data collection.

RESULTS: Compared with baseline, both groups showed significant improvement in knowledge and self-efficacy longitudinally (P<.001). Apart from the game group having a statistically significant difference in terms of satisfaction (P<.001), there were no significant differences between groups in knowledge gain, self-efficacy, cognitive load, ease of use, acceptability, or objective structured clinical examination scores. However, qualitative findings indicated that the game was more engaging and enjoyable, and it served as a visual aid compared with the PDF file.

CONCLUSIONS: Students favored learning through utilization of an SG with regard to cardiac history taking. This may be relevant to other areas of medicine, and this highlights the importance of innovative methods of teaching the next generation of medical students.

©Hussain Alyami, Mohammed Alawami, Mataroria Lyndon, Mohsen Alyami, Christin Coomarasamy, Marcus Henning, Andrew Hill, Frederick Sundram. Originally published in JMIR Serious Games (http://games.jmir.org), 26.09.2019.

Keywords: clinical competence; instructional technology; learning; memory; metaphor; retention; video games

References

  1. Acad Med. 2004 Jan;79(1):42-9 - PubMed
  2. J Surg Educ. 2011 Sep-Oct;68(5):403-7 - PubMed
  3. Teach Learn Med. 2001 Spring;13(2):130-5 - PubMed
  4. J Med Internet Res. 2015 Jul 10;17(7):e172 - PubMed
  5. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Nov;193(5):1848-51 - PubMed
  6. Adv Simul (Lond). 2017 Feb 4;2:3 - PubMed
  7. Med Educ. 2009 Dec;43(12):1129-40 - PubMed
  8. J Appl Psychol. 2008 May;93(3):617-31 - PubMed
  9. Med Teach. 2005 Sep;27(6):539-43 - PubMed
  10. Med Educ. 2010 Dec;44(12):1203-12 - PubMed
  11. Psychol Rev. 1977 Mar;84(2):191-215 - PubMed
  12. PLoS One. 2018 Jul 20;13(7):e0200724 - PubMed
  13. Arch Dis Child. 2016 Dec;101(12):1149-1152 - PubMed
  14. West J Med. 1992 Feb;156(2):163-5 - PubMed
  15. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2017 Oct;22(4):951-968 - PubMed
  16. Med Teach. 2010 Jan;32(1):16-27 - PubMed
  17. Br Med J. 1975 May 31;2(5969):486-9 - PubMed
  18. Acad Med. 2004 Oct;79(10):925-30 - PubMed
  19. Am J Med. 1998 Feb;104(2):152-8 - PubMed
  20. Lancet. 1976 Sep 11;2(7985):556-8 - PubMed
  21. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jan 31;(1):CD006411 - PubMed
  22. Front Psychol. 2017 Jul 18;8:1193 - PubMed
  23. Med Educ. 2005 Jun;39(6):561-7 - PubMed
  24. Fam Med. 1993 Jan;25(1):17-20 - PubMed
  25. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008 Jul;56(7):1328-32 - PubMed
  26. Med Educ. 2012 Jan;46(1):97-106 - PubMed
  27. Med Educ. 1998 May;32(3):283-8 - PubMed
  28. Ann Intern Med. 1979 Dec;91(6):898-902 - PubMed
  29. Med Educ Online. 2018 Dec;23(1):1438718 - PubMed
  30. Surg Endosc. 2014 Sep;28(9):2695-701 - PubMed
  31. Med Educ. 1992 Jul;26(4):276-81 - PubMed
  32. Nurs Diagn. 1993 Jul-Sep;4(3):99-106 - PubMed
  33. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2006 Jul;21(4):310-5 - PubMed
  34. Anat Sci Educ. 2009 Oct;2(5):199-204 - PubMed
  35. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Mar 28;21(3):e12994 - PubMed
  36. Ambul Pediatr. 2008 Nov-Dec;8(6):354-9 - PubMed
  37. Med Educ. 2004 Sep;38(9):974-9 - PubMed
  38. Med Teach. 2001 May;23(3):245-251 - PubMed
  39. Acad Med. 2012 Jun;87(6):767-75 - PubMed
  40. JMIR Serious Games. 2017 Nov 24;5(4):e23 - PubMed
  41. Malays J Med Sci. 2005 Jan;12(1):26-8 - PubMed
  42. Eye (Lond). 2013 Oct;27(10):1151-7 - PubMed
  43. J Med Syst. 2015 Nov;39(11):176 - PubMed
  44. PLoS One. 2013 Dec 05;8(12):e82328 - PubMed
  45. Perspect Med Educ. 2018 Apr;7(2):76-82 - PubMed
  46. Am J Prev Med. 2012 Jun;42(6):630-8 - PubMed
  47. Med Care. 2009 Aug;47(8):826-34 - PubMed
  48. JMIR Med Educ. 2015 May 11;1(1):e2 - PubMed
  49. Stat Med. 2014 Sep 20;33(21):3725-37 - PubMed
  50. Ann Intern Med. 1996 Nov 1;125(9):730-7 - PubMed
  51. Front Psychol. 2017 Nov 16;8:1997 - PubMed
  52. Int J Med Educ. 2014 Aug 20;5:165-72 - PubMed
  53. BMJ. 2002 Jan 19;324(7330):126-7 - PubMed
  54. Simul Healthc. 2016 Feb;11(1):41-51 - PubMed
  55. Yale J Biol Med. 1980 May-Jun;53(3):233-50 - PubMed
  56. CMAJ. 1995 May 1;152(9):1423-33 - PubMed
  57. J Adv Nurs. 2009 Feb;65(2):259-69 - PubMed
  58. Med Educ. 2007 Feb;41(2):196-204 - PubMed

Publication Types