The Ecofisio Mobile App for Assessment and Diagnosis Using Ultrasound Imaging for Undergraduate Health Science Students: Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

Background Generation Z is starting to reach college age. They have adopted technology from an early age and have a deep dependence on it; therefore, they have become more drawn to the virtual world. M-learning has experienced huge growth in recent years, both in the medical context and in medical and health sciences education. Ultrasound imaging is an important diagnosis technique in physiotherapy, especially in sports pathology. M-learning systems could be useful tools for improving the comprehension of ultrasound concepts and the acquisition of professional competencies. Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and use of an interactive platform accessible through mobile devices—Ecofisio—using ultrasound imaging for the development of professional competencies in the evaluation and diagnosis of sports pathologies. Methods Participants included 110 undergraduate students who were placed into one of two groups of a randomized controlled multicenter study: control group (ie, traditional learning) and experimental group (ie, Ecofisio mobile app). Participants’ theoretical knowledge was assessed using a multiple-choice questionnaire (MCQ); students were also assessed by means of the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE). Moreover, a satisfaction survey was completed by the students. Results The statistical analyses revealed that Ecofisio was effective in most of the processes evaluated when compared with the traditional learning method: all OSCE stations, P<.001; MCQ, 43 versus 15 students passed in the Ecofisio and control groups, respectively, P<.001. Moreover, the results revealed that the students found the app to be attractive and useful. Conclusions The Ecofisio mobile app may be an effective way for physiotherapy students to obtain adequate professional competencies regarding evaluation and diagnosis of sports pathologies. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04138511; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04138511

Digital learning designs in physiotherapy education: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

“…The studies included students at the bachelor's/undergraduates (n = 17), master's/ entry level (n = 1) and DPT programme level (n = 4). Of the included studies, ve were from Australia (25)(26)(27)(28)(29), ve from Spain (30)(31)(32)(33)(34), three from Brazil (35)(36)(37), one from Denmark (38) and eight from the USA (39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46). Seventeen of the studies had a RCT design (25,(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42), and ve were cohorts (26,(43)(44)(45)(46).…”

“…The duration of exposure to the digital learning designs ranged from 10 hours to two semesters. In the blended learning designs, 21 studies used different digital learning technology and software-such as interactive websites/apps, multimodal online environments (e.g., videos, animations and gures), recorded videos/lectures/tutorials, simulation learning videos with virtual cases/scenarios, video clips (video podcasting) and educational videogames-to present and facilitate the learning materials and to assess the learning outcomes on practical skills and/or knowledge acquisition (25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46).…”

“…We determined that the overall risk of bias was higher for the cohort studies (26,(43)(44)(45)(46) than the RCTs (25,(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42), ( Figure 2). The cohort's studies had a high risk of selection bias and attrition bias.…”

“…The RCTs (25,(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42), had a low or unclear risk of bias in the domains of performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias ( Figure 2). It was not possible to blind the students to the digital learning design interventions.…”

“…We pooled four studies (n = 279 students) that used interactive websites/apps in their blended digital learning designs and compared them to traditional classroom teaching on knowledge acquisition assessed by MCQs (30,(32)(33)(34). The meta-analysis showed a SMD of 0.51 (95% CI: -0.80, 1.82; with an I 2 of 96%, Figure 4).…”