Web-based learning versus standardized patients for teaching clinical diagnosis: a randomized, controlled, crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Little evidence exists to guide the selection of methods for teaching clinical diagnosis. PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy, student preference, and cost of a Web-based (WB) program versus a standardized patient (SP) encounter for teaching clinical diagnosis skills to 2nd-year medical students. METHODS: Randomized, controlled, crossover study comparing WB versus SP-based teaching for the clinical diagnosis of abdominal pain and headache. Outcome measures were performance on a 2-case SP examination (scored on the basis of a checklist completed by a faculty observer and an objective score on a postencounter subjective-objective assessment plan [SOAP] note), format preferences as assessed by end-of-course evaluations, and cost. RESULTS: Thirty students consented to participate. WB and SP training produced similar scores on both the Abdominal Pain checklist (66% vs. 62%; p = .17) and Headache checklist (56% vs. 63%; p = .07). WB training produced a higher score on the Abdominal Pain SOAP note (69% vs. 47%; p = .006), but not the Headache SOAP note (69% vs. 67%; p = .85). Students rated the SP format higher than the WB format on all 7 preference measures. Start-up costs were estimated at 2,190 dollars for the SP format and 2,250 dollars for the WB format. Ongoing costs per case per student were estimated to be 45 dollars for the SP format and 30 dollars for the WB format. CONCLUSIONS: WB and SP learning outcomes were comparable, but students preferred the SP format. Start-up costs were comparable, but the ongoing costs of the WB format were less expensive, suggesting that WB teaching may be a viable strategy.

A novel stress and coping workplace program reduces illness and healthcare utilization.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine if a novel workplace stress management program, delivered either face-to-face or by self-help, would reduce illness and health services utilization among participants. METHODS: Five hundred one volunteers were randomly allocated to one of three groups: full intervention, which received assessment and personalized self-study feedback and was offered six face-to-face, small-group sessions; partial intervention, a self-help group that received assessment and personalized feedback by mail; and a wait-list control group. All participants completed questionnaires for stress, anxiety, and coping at the start of the study and 6 and 12 months later. Health reports were completed at 0, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. A subsample of subjects who subscribed to a single health maintenance organization provided objectively recorded doctor visit data across the study year. RESULTS: All three groups reported significant improvement in their stress, anxiety, and coping across the year. Full intervention participants showed a more rapid reduction in negative responses to stress than did participants from the other groups. Full-intervention subjects also reported fewer days of illness than subjects in the other groups. Objectively measured physician visits showed a large (34%) reduction in healthcare utilization for full intervention subjects in the HMO subsample. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicated that a work-site program that focuses on stress, anxiety, and coping measurement along with small-group educational intervention can significantly reduce illness and healthcare utilization.