Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
GMS J Med Educ ; 38(6): Doc110, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1435941


Objective: To avert staff shortages during the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in spring 2020, the medical faculties of the Technical University of Munich (TUM) and the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (LMU) appealed to their students to volunteer for relief work. In this study, we examine the influence of psychological factors on the students' decisions to respond to this call or not. Methodology: We report on a cross-sectional study based on an online survey among medical students at the TUM and LMU. The survey consisted of a questionnaire containing items on motivation and other factors related to the decision for or against volunteering. Questions were also asked about anxieties regarding COVID-19 and the occurrence of depressive symptoms, as well as about resilience. Results: Responses from 244 participants were analysed. Students' decisions to volunteer revealed both altruistic and introjected motivations. For those students who did not volunteer, time overlaps and workload related to other activities played an important role. Between the two groups, no significant difference was detected in terms of their resilience and COVID-19-related anxieties. However, the non-volunteering students reported a significantly higher prevalence of depressive symptoms. Conclusion: Sense of duty and the desire to help were, according to the students, the most important reasons for volunteering. Depressive symptoms and lack of time made volunteering less likely. Resilience and COVID-19-related anxieties do not seem to have had any influence on the decision to volunteer or not.

COVID-19 , Students, Medical , Cross-Sectional Studies , Germany , Humans , Students, Medical/psychology , Volunteers/psychology
Urologe A ; 60(4): 484-490, 2021 Apr.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1172382


BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic presents the challenge for medical education to teach practical skills without practical training. To provide an alternative to hands-on training during the COVID-19 lockdown, we created a virtual curriculum to teach practical skills using videos combined with online exams on a virtual e­learning platform. The goal was to convey different theoretical and practical aspects of urology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The videos were produced by department employees using a predefined concept. The students had access to the virtual curriculum via the university's Moodle e­learning platform. To assess the success of training, participating students had to pass an online exam about the curriculum's contents, followed by an evaluation of the course. RESULTS: A total of 164 participants took part in the virtual curriculum. The overall evaluation and feedback was very positive. The acceptance of the virtual alternative to hands-on teaching was high. DISCUSSION: The virtual curriculum offered a fast and contactless alternative to the regular hands-on teaching.

COVID-19 , Urology , Communicable Disease Control , Curriculum , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Teaching
GMS J Med Educ ; 37(7): Doc99, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-971676


Objective: COVID-19 challenges curriculum managers worldwide to create digital substitutes for classroom teaching. Case-based teaching formats under expert supervision can be used as a substitute for practical bedside teaching, where the focus is on teaching clinical reasoning skills. Methods: For medical students of LMU and TU Munich, the interactive, case-based, and supervised teaching format of Clinical Case Discussion (CCD) was digitised and implemented as dCCD in their respective curricula. Case discussions were realised as videoconferences, led by a student moderator, and took place under the supervision of a board-certified clinician. To prevent passive participation, additional cognitive activations were implemented. Acceptance, usability, and subjective learning outcomes were assessed in dCCDs by means of a special evaluation concept. Results: With regard to acceptance, students were of the opinion that they had learned effectively by participating in dCCDs (M=4.31; SD=1.37). The majority of students also stated that they would recommend the course to others (M=4.23; SD=1.62). The technical implementation of the teaching format was judged positively overall, but findings for usability were heterogeneous. Students rated their clinical reasoning skills at the end of the dCCDs (M=4.43; SD=0.66) as being significantly higher than at the beginning (M=4.33; SD=0.69), with low effect size, t(181)=-2.352, p=.020, d=0.15. Conclusion: Our evaluation data shows that the dCCD format is well-accepted by students as a substitute for face-to-face teaching. In the next step, we plan to examine the extent to which participation in dCCDs leads to an increase in objectively measured clinical reasoning skills, analogous to a face-to-face CCD with on-site attendance.

COVID-19/epidemiology , Clinical Decision-Making/methods , Education, Distance/organization & administration , Education, Medical/organization & administration , Videoconferencing/organization & administration , Clinical Competence , Education, Distance/standards , Education, Medical/standards , Educational Measurement , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Students, Medical/psychology , Videoconferencing/standards