Applying Videos Feedback Learning to Improve Skills Performance of Physiotherapy Interns

NCT06449560 | Not Yet Recruiting DMC

• 1 other identifier: N202211059
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 90
• Locations: 0 countries
• Sites: N/A

Brief Summary

This project uses self-practicing videos feedback to learn to improve the skill performance of physiotherapy interns. For traditional physiotherapy intern courses, teachers will conduct core courses and demonstrate teaching, but students are less familiar with the application of skills, even if adding practice course. The learning outcomes of the course are still not good in skill performance. By recording the self-practicing videos, the teacher uses observation and feedback to let the physiotherapy interns know whether the posture of the individual case, the fixed position of the limbs are appropriate, the resistance given and whether the verbal instruction is correct, and based on the evaluation outcomes to observe the students' learning status and clinical thinking ability can improve the skill performance and learning satisfaction.

Conditions

Feedback

Keywords

Videos Feedback; Skills Performance; Physiotherapy

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

• Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE)

  Evaluators utilize a detailed, operationally defined standardized checklist to assess the performance of examinees in a structured clinical skills assessment. This instructional design aims to aid students in learning and understanding their learning outcomes, evaluating the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of the examinees through a performance-based testing approach. The scoring sheet includes an standardized checklist and an overall performance assessment. The standardized checklist comprises 15 items, with results presented in percentages, where higher scores indicate better performance. The overall performance assessment ranges from 5 points (excellent) to 1 point (poor).

  pre-test, within 1 week post test, 3-month follow-up

Secondary Outcomes (3)

• Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise (Mini-CEX)

  pre-test, within 1 week post test, 3-month follow-up

• Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS)

  pre-test, within 1 week post test, 3-month follow-up

• Course Satisfaction

  within 1 week post test

Study Arms (2)

Practice Group

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Participants in this group engage in the traditional core course, followed by a 20-minute practical session where they pair up for mutual hands-on practice. The assessment of upper limb soft tissue operations takes approximately 4 minutes per session, allowing for approximately 5 practice sessions.

Other: Practice Group

Video Feedback Group

EXPERIMENTAL

Participants receive the traditional core course along with a 20-minute video feedback session. Initially, a therapist records students' assessment techniques in action, capturing the dynamic process on video. The recorded video is then played on a screen for both the course teacher and students to watch together. Participants can annotate specific actions during the viewing, and the course teacher facilitates a reflective discussion where participants observe and identify any issues or correct actions as expected. The teacher provides feedback on areas of improvement in the action process for further practice. The self-viewing of the recorded video serves as a valuable tool for enhancing the skill performance of physical therapy interns.

Other: Practice Group; Other: Video Feedback Group

Interventions

Practice Group OTHER

Participants in this group engage in the traditional core course (1-hour lecture on upper limb soft tissue differential diagnosis and assessment techniques. They have the opportunity to observe teacher demonstrations, and the course content and instructional demonstrations are consistent and delivered by the same therapist), followed by a 20-minute practical session where they pair up for mutual hands-on practice. The assessment of upper limb soft tissue operations takes approximately 4 minutes per session, allowing for approximately 5 practice sessions.

Practice Group; Video Feedback Group

Video Feedback Group OTHER

Participants receive the traditional core course (as the same in the practice group) along with a 20-minute video feedback session. Initially, a therapist records students' assessment techniques in action, capturing the dynamic process on video. The recorded video is then played on a screen for both the course teacher and students to watch together. Participants can annotate specific actions during the viewing, and the course teacher facilitates a reflective discussion where participants observe and identify any issues or correct actions as expected. The teacher provides feedback on areas of improvement in the action process for further practice. The self-viewing of the recorded video serves as a valuable tool for enhancing the skill performance of physical therapy interns.

Video Feedback Group

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 20 Years - 65 Years
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• physical therapy interns require individuals to be over 20 years old.

You may not qualify if:

• Individuals unwilling to participate in the study.

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Taipei Medical University WanFang Hospital: lead

Related Publications (10)

• Miller GE. The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Acad Med. 1990 Sep;65(9 Suppl):S63-7. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199009000-00045. No abstract available.

  PMID: 2400509 BACKGROUND

• Mori B, Carnahan H, Herold J. Use of Simulation Learning Experiences in Physical Therapy Entry-to-Practice Curricula: A Systematic Review. Physiother Can. 2015 Spring;67(2):194-202. doi: 10.3138/ptc.2014-40E.

  PMID: 25931672 BACKGROUND

• Blackstock FC, Watson KM, Morris NR, Jones A, Wright A, McMeeken JM, Rivett DA, O'Connor V, Peterson RF, Haines TP, Watson G, Jull GA. Simulation can contribute a part of cardiorespiratory physiotherapy clinical education: two randomized trials. Simul Healthc. 2013 Feb;8(1):32-42. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0b013e318273101a.

  PMID: 23250189 BACKGROUND

• Watson K, Wright A, Morris N, McMeeken J, Rivett D, Blackstock F, Jones A, Haines T, O'Connor V, Watson G, Peterson R, Jull G. Can simulation replace part of clinical time? Two parallel randomised controlled trials. Med Educ. 2012 Jul;46(7):657-67. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04295.x. Epub 2012 May 30.

  PMID: 22646319 BACKGROUND

• Sanders BR, Ruvolo JF. Mock clinic. An approach to clinical education. Phys Ther. 1981 Aug;61(8):1163-7. doi: 10.1093/ptj/61.8.1163.

  PMID: 7267707 BACKGROUND

• Guadagnoli MA, Lee TD. Challenge point: a framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. J Mot Behav. 2004 Jun;36(2):212-24. doi: 10.3200/JMBR.36.2.212-224.

  PMID: 15130871 BACKGROUND

• Emmen HH, Wesseling LG, Bootsma RJ, Whiting HT, Van Wieringen PC. The effect of video-modelling and video-feedback on the learning of the tennis service by novices. J Sports Sci. 1985 Summer;3(2):127-38. doi: 10.1080/02640418508729742.

  PMID: 4094023 BACKGROUND

• Wulf G, Shea C, Lewthwaite R. Motor skill learning and performance: a review of influential factors. Med Educ. 2010 Jan;44(1):75-84. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03421.x.

  PMID: 20078758 BACKGROUND

• Duffy A. A concept analysis of reflective practice: determining its value to nurses. Br J Nurs. 2007 Dec 13-2008 Jan 9;16(22):1400-7. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2007.16.22.27771.

  PMID: 18361389 BACKGROUND

• Rotthoff T, Ostapczuk MS, Kroncke KD, Zimmerhofer A, Decking U, Schneider M, Ritz-Timme S. Criterion validity of a competency-based assessment center in medical education--a 4-year follow-up study. Med Educ Online. 2014 Sep 12;19:25254. doi: 10.3402/meo.v19.25254. eCollection 2014.

  PMID: 25219931 BACKGROUND

MeSH Terms

Interventions

Group Practice

Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Professional Practice; Organization and Administration; Health Services Administration

Study Officials

• Hsien I Lin, MS

  Wan Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical University

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Central Study Contacts

Hsien I Lin, MS

CONTACT

+886-2-29307930; 88262@w.tmu.edu.tw

Yung C Wang, MS

CONTACT

+886-2-29307930; 106021@w.tmu.edu.tw

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: DOUBLE
• Who Masked: INVESTIGATOR, OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
• Purpose: OTHER
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Clinical Professor

Model Details: Randomized, single-blinded, two parallel-groups trial

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: December 10, 2023
• First Posted: June 10, 2024
• Study Start: July 1, 2024
• Primary Completion (Estimated): May 30, 2026
• Study Completion (Estimated): May 31, 2026
• Last Updated: June 10, 2024

Record last verified: 2024-06

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will share
• Shared Documents: STUDY PROTOCOL, SAP, CSR
• Time Frame: Individual Participant Data Sharing Plan Description Data will last for 3 years after the end of the study.
• Access Criteria: Ecxel