Search

The way medical students learn anatomy is constantly evolving. Nowadays, technologies such as tablets support established learning methods like drawing. In this study, the effect of drawing on a tablet on medical students' anatomy learning was investigated compared to drawing or summarizing on paper. The quality of drawings or summaries was assessed as a measure of the quality of strategy implementation. Learning outcome was measured with an anatomy test, both immediately afterward and after 4-6 weeks to assess its sustainability. There were no significant group differences in learning outcome at both measurement points. For all groups, there was a significant medium strength correlation between the quality of the drawings or summaries and the learning outcome (p 0.05). Further analysis revealed that the quality of strategy implementation moderated outcomes in the delayed test: When poorly implemented, drawing on a tablet (M = 48.81) was associated with lower learning outcome than drawing on paper (M = 58.95); The latter (M = 58.89) was related to higher learning outcome than writing summaries (M = 45.59). In case of high-quality strategy implementation, drawing on a tablet (M = 60.98) outperformed drawing on paper (M = 52.67), which in turn was outperformed by writing summaries (M = 62.62). To conclude, drawing on a tablet serves as a viable alternative to paper-based methods for learning anatomy if students can make adequate use of this strategy. Future research needs to identify how to support student drawing, for instance, by offering scaffolds with adaptive feedback to enhance learning.

Background: There are limited data on the use and concern of telemedicine among German urologists, and thus, there are no established guidelines for telemedical diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of urological indications. Methods: An anonymized survey was conducted among German private practice urologists during the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The χ2 test, Mann-Whitney U-test, and Kruskal-Wallis test were used for statistical analysis. Results: 257 urologists were included in the final analysis. Thirty-five (14.0%) of urologists had used telemedicine as part of their consultation, and 221 (86.0%) had not used telemedicine. There was no difference between telemedicine adoption rates between rural and urban settings. Telemedicine users were significantly more satisfied with the information they had received regarding telemedicine issues. Users saw the greatest barrier to telemedicine that patients do not take up the offer of telemedicine. Nonusers were most concerned with unclear indications for telemedicine followed by lesser reimbursements during telemedicine than in-person visitations. Users were significantly more likely to use telemedicine beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Urologists, who wanted to use the service in the future, wanted an active support by the German society of urology and guidelines for telemedicine. Last, users and nonusers preferred telemedicine for non-acute chronic diseases and follow-up visitations. Conclusion: Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine remains a rarely used service among German private practice urologists. Ultimately, to overcome the current challenges, urologists require an active support for the service through the German Society of Urology and telemedical guidelines.