Comparative Analysis of the Results of Traditional and New Distance Learning Method Among the Master’s Degree Students and Physicians in Uzbekistan

Abstract

The rapid changes in medical theory and practice require physicians to undertake continuing medical
education. The low level of qualifications of physicians can eventually lead to medical errors. There is a
special currency to measure and evaluate the obsolescence of knowledge, the so-called half-life of knowledge.
Materials and Method: Analysis of results and evaluations using various forms of training method on
one topic between 2nd year master’s degree students (masters) of Tashkent pediatric medical institute and
physicians. Training was conducted traditionally (face-to-face form for periods of each time 1 hundred 10
minutes) and distance-based (internet point of-care learning and journal-based continual medical education).
The results of tests among 72 masters and 84 physicians were retrospectively analyzed.
Results: According to the study, it was found that the average rating in the group of Masters via traditional
method with an “unsatisfactory” evaluation was 2 (4%) while in the group of physicians with the same
test the number with an unsatisfactory evaluation was 9 (21%), (which is four times more). The number of
Masters who received a satisfactory evaluation was 12 (23%) (18 physicians received the same evaluation,
representing 43%). The number of Masters who got a good evaluation was 23 (43%) and only 10 or 24 %
of the physicians got the same score (which is twice less than the result of masters) and 16 (30%) Masters
received an excellent rating (5 physicians received the same mark or this was 3 times less).
Discussion: More than half of the physicians (being 27 or 64%) responded to the test with an evaluation
of “satisfactory” and “unsatisfactory”, while only 14 (26% or 2.5 times less) Masters received such marks.
Only 15 (35%) physicians received “good” or “excellent” rating, whereas among the masters, this result was
39 (60% or 2 times higher than the responses of physicians). However, among the participant soft the online
program unsatisfactory response was not observed. 8 (42%) participants answered satisfactorily, 11 (58%)
of the participants responded with good or excellent marks.
Conclusions: Following the results of the analysis, the study showed that the increase in theoretical
knowledge has been identified in a larger number of masters. The knowledge gained through traditional
teaching or distance (online and journal form of training) learning, seems virtually identical, and the study
seems to indicate that they even surpass the traditional method of training.