Establishing a strong link early on between preclinical coursework and the clinical context is necessary for students to be able to recognize the practical relevance of the curriculum during their preclinical anatomical courses and to transfer knowledge more easily. Our objective was to enhance the clinical relevance of a preclinical anatomy course for second-year medical students of dentistry by implementing an interdisciplinary skills training course on “Palpation of the Head and Neck Muscles” and to measure the learning outcomes. For the curricular development of the expanded course module, Kern’s 6-step approach was applied including subjective evaluation. We used a peer-teaching format supported by an e-learning application. A randomized control study measured effects of the two components (skills training, e-module) on learning outcomes. Four learning methods were compared: (1) lecture, (2) lecture + e-module, (3) lecture + skills training, (4) lecture + skills training + e-module. An objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) was used to measure and compare learning outcomes. The two-way variance analysis demonstrated that participation in the skills training had a statistically significant effect on the OSCE results (p = 0.0007). Students who participated in the skills training did better (φ 107.4 ± 14.4 points) than students who only attended the lecture (φ 88.8 ± 26.2 points). Students who used the e-module but did not attend the skills training earned a slightly but not significantly higher average number of points (φ 91.8 ± 31.3 points) than those who only attended the lecture. The learning outcomes of the skills training were again significantly increased when the training was combined with the e-module (φ 121.8 ± 21.8 points), thus making it the ideal method for achieving the learning objectives defined in this study. The “Palpation of the Head and Neck Muscles” interdisciplinary skills training course linking basic anatomical knowledge and clinical skills led to clearly improved learning outcomes for both, anatomical knowledge and clinical skills. The additional use of an e-learning tool (e-module) improved the learning effect.

Background: The purpose of this pilot study was to create a valid and reliable set of assessment questions for examining Evidence-based Dentistry (EbD) knowledge. For this reason, we adapted and validated for dental students the Berlin Questionnaire (BQ), which assesses Evidence-based Medicine (EbM) abilities. Methods: The Berlin Questionnaire was validated with medical residents. We adapted it for use in a dentistry setting. An expert panel reviewed the adapted BQ for content validity. A cross-sectional cohort representing four training levels (EbD-novice dental students, EbD-trained dental students, dentists, and EbM−/EbD-expert faculty) completed the questionnaire. A total of 140 participants comprised the validation set. Internal reliability, item difficulty and item discrimination were assessed. Construct validity was assessed by comparing the mean total scores of students to faculty and comparing proportions of students and faculty who passed each item. Results: Among the 133 participants (52 EbD-novice dental students, 53 EbD-trained dental students, 12 dentists, and 16 EbM-/ EbD-expert faculty), a statistically significant (p < 0.001) difference was evident in the total score corresponding to the training level. The total score reliability and psychometric properties of items modified for discipline-specific content were acceptable. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.648. Conclusion: The adapted Berlin Questionnaire is a reliable and valid instrument to assess competence in Evidence-based Dentistry in dental students. Future research will focus on refining the instrument further.

It is still unclear to what extent the PBL tutor affects learning in PBL-sessions. This mixed-methods study (Part 1 and 2) evaluated the effects of facilitative (f) versus non-facilitative (nf) tutoring roles on knowledge-gain and group functioning in the field of endodontics. Part 1 was a quantitative assessment of tutor effectiveness within a prospective, experimental, single-blind, stratified, randomized, two-group intervention study. Participants attended PBL in the context of a hybrid curriculum. A validated questionnaire was used and knowledge assessments were conducted before and after the intervention. External observers rated tutor performance. Part 2 was a qualitative assessment of tutor effectiveness and consisted of semi-structured expert interviews with tutors and focus group discussions with students. Part 1: f tutors obtained significantly higher scores than nf tutors with respect to learning motivation and tutor effectiveness (p ≤ 0.05). nf tuition resulted in a slightly larger knowledge gain (p = 0.08). External observers documented a significantly higher activity among facilitative tutors compared to non-facilitative tutors. Part 2: Tutors found the f role easier although this led to a less autonomous working climate. The students rated f tutoring as positive in all cases. With respect to PBL-group performance, students felt that groups guided in a non-facilitative fashion exhibited a higher level of independence and autonomy, especially with increasing PBL experience. In addition, students reported that more preparation was necessary for sessions guided by a non-facilitative tutor. Tutors were able to modify their role and influence group processes in a controlled manner. Results are useful for future “Train-the-Teacher” sessions.