Medical students who are asked to make the following diagnoses based on case vignettes: pulmonary embolism with stomach pain as the main symptom and bacterial tonsillitis with sore throat and gray tonsils.
Conditions
Interventions
Group 1: Students receive a case vignette of the first case (common disease with typical symptoms) in the order 1. Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS), 2. Conventional diagnostic methods. After ea
Sponsors
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
All
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: Medical students = 18 years of age who are participating in a tutorial of their own choosing and have completed their sixth semester. This ensures that no third-party consent is required (age) and that students have the necessary knowledge of medical history and diagnosis (semester).
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: Students < 18 years of age or in their 6th semester or below.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| The primary outcome is accuracy of the diagnosis arrived at with the CDSS compared to conventional methods. After each within-subjects condition (CDSS and conventional methods), participants assign a diagnosis. Each given diagnosis will be assessed on a scale from 1 (incorrect) to 5 (correct) using the organ system (lymphatic tonsillar ring and lungs) and the disease mechanism (inflammation and thromboembolism) as orientation marks. For instance, if both the organ system and the disease mechanism are correct (i.e., bacterial tonsillitis and pulmonary embolism), the diagnosis will be given 5 points; if both are incorrect (e.g., rib fracture), the diagnosis will be given 1 point; if one is correct, the other incorrect (e.g., pneumonia), the diagnosis will be scored with 3 points. The scores 2 and 4 pay heed to grey areas as common in many medical settings. Final scores for each diagnosis will be identified by using the median score from the three experts. The highest scoring diagnosis for each participant in each condition will be included in the analyses together with the corresponding trust value (no ranking of the up to three diagnoses). | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| acceptance (Van der Laan, Heino, & de Waard, 1997) perceived usefulness (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989) perceived ease of use (Davis et al., 1989) technology acceptance (subscale technology commitment) (Neyer, Felber, & Gebhardt, 2012) technology competence belief (subscale technology commitment) (Neyer et al., 2012) technology control beliefs (subscale technology commitment) (Neyer et al., 2012) sociodemographic variables (age, gender, semester of study, prior medical knowledge) | — |
Countries
Germany
Contacts
Public ContactJan Zöllick
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Outcome results
None listed