Using an anatomic model to teach female stress incontinence to gynecologic residents-in-training: A prospective cohort study

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a complex condition with a multifactorial etiology that makes its concepts challenging to teach. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of simulation-based training (SBT) with an anatomic teaching model in improving the understanding of SUI among gynecologic residents-in-training. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of SUI simulation-based teaching in enhancing the learning experience for gynecologic residents-in-training. The secondary objective was to gather feedback from participants with the intent to further enhance existing teaching methodologies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a descriptive prospective study within a single institution, involving gynecologic residents-in-training. Participants were given an anatomic teaching tool to construct, followed by an SUI lecture. Pre- and posttest Multiple Choice Questions were administered to assess the efficacy of the teaching tool in improving the participants’ understanding of SUI. Frequency and percentages were used to describe the categorical variables, whereas continuous variables were described using mean and standard deviation. Paired t-test was used to compare the pre- and posttest scores. ANOVA was used to compare the pre- and posttest scores of participants by year level. A P < 0.05 is statistically significant. A separate Likert-scale questionnaire, to evaluate changes in participant’s self-assessment on learning, response to teaching content and resources, and overall feedback of the SBT was used. RESULTS: There were 50 gynecologic residents-in-training that were included in the study. The mean posttest score is significantly higher (6.4 vs. 3.48) than the pretest score, with a mean difference of 3.48. The mean posttest score is significantly different between the year levels with a P < 0.05, with senior residents-in-training performing best. Although participants with only gynecologic conferences as SUI reference performed best, the mean pre- and posttest scores were not statistically different with respect to SUI education exposure. With the use of an anatomic SUI model, the number of correct answers for questions pertaining to anatomy, physiology, and pathophysiology was consistently higher in the posttest scores as compared to the pretest scores but did not reach statistical significance. The majority of participants strongly agree to recommend the course to a colleague. CONCLUSION: This study supports the use of simple, low-fidelity physical teaching tools in improving the understanding of SUI in gynecologic residents-in-training. Considering the ease of production, improved test scores, and participants’ enthusiasm, the incorporation of the anatomic teaching tool for its use in SUI education should be encouraged.