Case-Based Collaborative Learning in Undergraduate Radiology Teaching-Are Essential Conditions for Group Discussions Met?

BACKGROUND: Delivering case-based collaborative learning (cCBL) at scale using technology that both presents the clinical problem authentically and seeks to foster quality group discussion is a challenge, especially argumentation which is critical for effective learning. The aim of this study was to investigate the presence of essential conditions to capitalize on a technology-enhanced cCBL scenario for teaching radiology and facilitating quality group discussion. METHODS: A questionnaire was administered to 114 fourth-year medical students who completed a technology-enhanced cCBL scenario for teaching neuroradiology. It consisted of individual online pre-class work and face-to-face in-class work, where group discussion followed individual work at a workstation. Items from the "Heedful Interrelating in Collaborative Educational Settings" scale and "positive emotional engagement" questionnaire assessed the quality of social-cognitive processes and emotional engagement during the group discussions. Structured interviews were used to explore the teachers' awareness of and engagement with the technology. RESULTS: The mean scores of most "heedfulness" items were below 3.5 (7-point scale), suggesting that participants did not enter the debriefing with a mindset conducive for argumentation. However, for the affective states "interest" and "enjoyment" the mean scores were above 5. Free text comments suggested participants enjoyed the superficial interactions, but did not necessarily engage in argumentation. Structured interviews revealed teachers were aware of the possibilities of the learning dashboard and used it as a common frame of reference, but did not really succeed to use it as a springboard for discussion. CONCLUSION: A technology-enhanced cCBL scenario is useful for teaching radiology in undergraduate medical education, but the added value of acquiring in-depth knowledge will only be achieved when students are aware of the importance of an "heedful" mind-set

Camostat Mesylate Versus Lopinavir/Ritonavir in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19—Results From a Randomized, Controlled, Open Label, Platform Trial (ACOVACT)

Background: To date, no oral antiviral drug has proven to be beneficial in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.Methods: In this randomized, controlled, open-label, platform trial, we randomly assigned patients ≥18 years hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia to receive either camostat mesylate (CM) (considered standard-of-care) or lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/RTV). The primary endpoint was time to sustained clinical improvement (≥48 h) of at least one point on the 7-category WHO scale. Secondary endpoints included length of stay (LOS), need for mechanical ventilation (MV) or death, and 29-day mortality.Results: 201 patients were included in the study (101 CM and 100 LPV/RTV) between 20 April 2020 and 14 May 2021. Mean age was 58.7 years, and 67% were male. The median time from symptom onset to randomization was 7 days (IQR 5–9). Patients in the CM group had a significantly shorter time to sustained clinical improvement (HR = 0.67, 95%-CI 0.49–0.90; 9 vs. 11 days, p = 0.008) and demonstrated less progression to MV or death [6/101 (5.9%) vs. 15/100 (15%), p = 0.036] and a shorter LOS (12 vs. 14 days, p = 0.023). A statistically nonsignificant trend toward a lower 29-day mortality in the CM group than the LPV/RTV group [2/101 (2%) vs. 7/100 (7%), p = 0.089] was observed.Conclusion: In patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the use of CM was associated with shorter time to clinical improvement, reduced need for MV or death, and shorter LOS than the use of LPV/RTV. Furthermore, research is needed to confirm the efficacy of CM in larger placebo-controlled trials.Systematic Review Registration: [https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04351724, https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2020-001302-30/AT], identifier [NCT04351724, EUDRACT-NR: 2020–001302-30]