Blended Learning Versus Face-to-face Learning in Cardiac Physiotherapy Students

NCT05547009 | Completed

• 1 other identifier: IE1576047
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 100
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

Blended learning (BL) combines both face-to-face learning (FL) and online learning. There is no evidence about the effects of a BL program in cardiac physiotherapy education. This study aimed at comparing the effectiveness of a BL program versus a FL program in Physiotherapy Degree students on knowledge, competencies, satisfaction, perceptions, usability, BL acceptance, attitudes and behaviours. An assessor-blinded randomized trial was performed.

Conditions

Learning; Students

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

• Knowledge acquisition

  Multiple-choice test. Score from 0 to 10 .The higher the score, the greater the knowledge.

  5 minutes

Secondary Outcomes (6)

• Cross-curricular ethical and gender competencies

  5 minute

• Satisfaction with the program

  5 minute

• Perceptions and evaluation of the program

  5 minutes

• Usability of the virtual platform

  5 minutes

• Blended-learning acceptance

  5 minutes

Study Arms (2)

Blended-learning group

EXPERIMENTAL

The BL program included paced, asynchronous online learning modules and scheduled online activities with strategic face-to-face lectures.

Other: Blended-learning group

Face-to-face learning group

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Face-to-face classes.

Other: Face-to-face learning group

Interventions

Blended-learning group OTHER

The BL program included paced, asynchronous online learning modules and scheduled online activities with strategic face-to-face lectures. Resources: 1) Moodle platform: it was used as a virtual communication platform. 2) Online syllabus: an online specific syllabus about cardiac physiotherapy was developed. 3) Online glossary: an online glossary performed by the teacher was available for the students. 4) Online videos: several videos of international and national scientific societies were provided. 5) Websites: several links to websites of international and national scientific societies such as the European Society of Cardiology, the American Heart Association or the World Heart Federation were used. 6) Online activities: five four-question online activities were created. 7) Apps, using the app Ariadna to prevent from cardiovascular risk and look for defibrillators around; 8) Online tutorship, through an online communication platform (Blackboard Collaborate).

Blended-learning group

Face-to-face learning group OTHER

The FLG included: 1) Face-to-face classes; 2) Hardcopy syllabus; 3) Hardcopy scien-tific societies information; 4) Face-to-face activities: four questions per each theme; 5) Hardcopy glossary; and 6) Face-to-face tutorships. In all cases, the content of the infor-mation provided was the same as the information provided to the BLG, although in a face-to-face design.

Face-to-face learning group

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years+
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• Being a student of Degree in Physiotherapy at the University of Valencia.
• Willing to participate

You may not qualify if:

• Previous cardiac physiotherapy training.

Sponsors & Collaborators

• University of Valencia: lead

Study Sites (1)

University of Valencia

Valencia, 46010, Spain

Location

Related Publications (1)

• Ng L, Seow KC, MacDonald L, Correia C, Reubenson A, Gardner P, Spence AL, Bunzli S, De Oliveira BIR. eLearning in Physical Therapy: Lessons Learned From Transitioning a Professional Education Program to Full eLearning During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Phys Ther. 2021 Apr 4;101(4):pzab082. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzab082.

  PMID: 33751113 BACKGROUND

Related Links

• Blended Learning: The impact of blackboard formative assessment on the final marks and students' perception of its effectiveness
• Blended learning in health education: three case studies

Study Officials

• Elena Marqués Sulé, Dra

  Univeristy of Valencia

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: SINGLE
• Who Masked: OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
• Masking Details: The assessor was blinded to the participants interventions.
• Purpose: OTHER
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Assistant Professor

Model Details: An assessor-blinded two-armed randomized trial

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: September 15, 2022
• First Posted: September 21, 2022
• Study Start: September 12, 2020
• Primary Completion: March 30, 2021
• Study Completion: March 30, 2021
• Last Updated: September 22, 2022

Record last verified: 2022-09

Locations

ES (1)