Background: E-learning is playing an increasing role in medical education, supporting a problem-based and practical oriented education without putting patients at risk and compensating for the decrease in instructor-centered teaching. Not much research has been done concerning learning effects and reaction on behalf of the students. Methods: We created computer-based cases for four important diagnoses in urology using the authoring system CASUS®. Fourth-year medical school students were randomized into two groups: (1) the CASUS® group, using the online cases for preparation, and (2) the book group, using a textbook. A multiple-choice test referring to the prepared topic had to be completed at the beginning of each lecture and the results were analyzed. Evaluation of the students concerning the acceptance of the program was done at the end of the semester. Results: Members of the CASUS® group scored significantly higher with an average of 20% better test results than students using textbooks for preparation. Evaluation regarding the program showed a highly positive rating. Limitations include the small study population and the possibly biased test performance of the students. Conclusion: Computerized patient cases facilitate practice-oriented teaching and result in an interesting and engaging learning model with improved learning outcomes.

Keywords:
Computers and education, E-learning, Medical education, Problem based learning, Teaching methods, Virtual patients
1.
Ruiz JG, Mintzer MJ, Leipzig RM: The impact of e-learning in medical education. Acad Med 2006;81:207-212.
2.
Ozuah PO: Undergraduate medical education: thoughts on future challenges. BMC Med Educ 2002;2:8-10.
3.
Cook DA, Triola MM: Virtual patients: a critical literature review and proposed next steps. Med Educ 2009;43:303-311.
4.
Bundesministerium für Gesundheit (BMG): Approbationsordnung für Ärzte, 2002, §2.
5.
Ellaway R, Poulton T, Fors U, McGee JB, Albright S: Building a virtual patient commons. Med Teach 2008;30:170-174.
6.
Fischer MR: CASUS - an authoring and learning tool supporting diagnostic reasoning. Z Hochschuldidaktik 2000;1:87-98.
7.
Instruct AG: München: INSTRUCT AG. http://www.instruct.de/?q=en (accessed February 2, 2012).
8.
Horstmann M, Horstmann C, Renninger M: Case creation and e-learning in a Web-based virtual department of urology using the INMEDEA Simulator. Nephrourol Mon 2012;4:356-360.
9.
Riemer M, Abendroth M: Virtuelle Patienten: Wie werden sie aus Sicht von Medizinstudierenden am besten eingesetzt? GMS Med Inform Biom Epidemiol 2013;9:Doc 19.
10.
Ellaway R, Candler C, Greene P, Smothers V: An Architectural Model for MedBiquitous Virtual Patients. Baltimore, MedBiquitous, 2006.
11.
Biggs JB, Collins KF: Evaluation the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy. New York, Academic Press, 1982.
12.
Atherton JS: Learning and teaching; SOLO taxonomy. 2013. http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/solo.htm (accessed May 25, 2014).
13.
Cook DA: Web-based learning: pros, cons and controversies. Clin Med 2007;7:37-42.
14.
Cook DA, Dupras DM: Teaching on the Web: automated online instruction and assessment of residents in an acute care clinic. Med Teach 2004;26:599-603.
15.
Chumley-Jones HS, Dobbie A, Alford CL: Web-based learning: sound educational method or hype? A review of the evaluation literature. Acad Med 2002;77:86-93.
16.
Bell DS, Fonarow GC, Hays RD, Mangione CM: Self-study from Web-based and printed guideline materials. A randomized, controlled trial among resident physicians. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:938-946.
17.
Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S, Dupras DM, Erwin PJ, Montori VM: Internet-based learning in the health professions: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2008;300:1181.
18.
Strunk T, Mueller SC: Education of medical students in urology in Germany: present status (in German). Urologe A 2011;50:180-187.
19.
Horstmann M, Renninger M, Hennenlotter J, Horstmann CC, Stenzl A: Blended e-learning in a Web-based virtual hospital: a useful tool for undergraduate education in urology. Educ Health (Abingdon) 2009;22:269.
20.
Masie E: Blended learning: the magic is in the mix; in Rossett A (ed): The ASTD E-Learning Handbook. New York, McGraw-Hill, 2002, pp 58-63.
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
2015
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.