The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, 2015/09, 115(9):556-64. doi: 10.7556/jaoa.2015.113, type of study: ,css,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Free full text   (https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.7556/jaoa.2015.113/html)

Keywords:

medical education [684]
medical students [693]
osteopathic medicine [2108]
table trainer-to-student ratio [1]
osteopathic colleges [11]
cross sectional study [894]
USA [1751]

Abstract:

CONTEXT: Improving the acquisition of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) skills may increase student confidence and later use of OMT. A first step in this process is determining the optimal table trainer-to-student ratio (TTR). OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of TTR on knowledge and skill acquisition of cervical muscle energy OMT techniques in first-year osteopathic medical students. METHODS: First-year students at 3 colleges of osteopathic medicine received instruction on cervical diagnosis and muscle energy techniques at 1 of 3 workshops, each having a different TTR (1:4, 1:8, or 1:16). Written assessments were conducted immediately before and after the workshop and again 2 weeks later to test retention of the knowledge acquired. Practical assessments were conducted immediately after the workshop and 2 weeks later to test retention of the skills acquired and were graded for technical and proficiency elements. RESULTS: Ninety-two students completed pre- and postworkshop assessments, and 86 completed the retention assessment. No difference was found between TTRs on the preworkshop, postworkshop, and retention written scores (P>/=.15). Postworkshop written assessment scores were highest, followed by retention scores; preworkshop scores were lowest (P<.001). Although the mean (SD) postworkshop practical scores for the 1:4 and 1:8 TTR workshop groups (266.3 [43.1] and 250.6 [47.5], respectively) were higher than those for the 1:16 TTR groups (230.3 [62.2]), the difference was not significant (P=.06). For the retention practical assessment scores, no significant difference was found between TTRs (P=.19). A significant interaction was noted between TTR and the timing of practical assessments; scores declined from postworkshop to retention assessments for the 1:4 (P=.04) and 1:8 (P=.02) TTR workshop groups but not the 1:16 TTR workshop groups (P=.21). Student order in paired student demonstrations also had a significant effect on technical scores (P