Description and rules of a new card game to learn clinical reasoning in musculoskeletal physiotherapy

Figures & data

Figure 1. Illustration of Families of hypotheses on the back of which students can write their hypotheses. An example played is available in Figure 2.

Figure 2. a. Body chart of the clinical case study played in b. On the body chart, next to the site “1” are written: ”constant”, ”variable”, ”deep” and next to the site “2” are written: ”not constant”, ”deep”, ”tingling”, ”numbness”. ”√” means that the patient does not mention any symptoms in these body areas. b. Example of clinical case study played by a group of students, with initial case hypotheses and brief notations of rationale for each of the 10 families of hypotheses. Note that the hypotheses for some families are arranged in a kind of decision tree. The clinical case example presented is not intended to show the only correct way to present a clinical case to students. Indeed, we leave it up to each teacher to construct his or her case as he or she sees fit, for example by deliberately omitting information’s (this depends on what the teacher wants to develop as learning for the students).

Figure 3. Results of the internal survey. For illustrative purposes only, we present a pilot survey of student feedback on the 'Happy Families' game. This feedback was conducted opportunistically during a class session. The evaluation of this session was based on a questionnaire (ASPECT) developed by [60]. The survey aims to assess students’ perspective on their engagement in an active-learning classroom. Twenty-seven physiotherapists in post-professional training (“OMT students”) used the game during an CR activity supervised by two teachers (RH & AF). In general, this assessment reveals the importance of group interactions and the key role of the teacher(s), in mastering the game and being helpful without being intrusive. In addition, the implementation of the game seems to have increased the students’ attractiveness for the subject concerned, i.e. CR. These results and their interpretation need to be nuanced as the evaluation was conducted on a heterogeneous group of PT students, without any inclusion and exclusion criteria, such as their relationship with games, gender, culture or professional experience. The survey items were: Q1: The instructor enthusiasm made me more interested in the activity, Q2: The topic activity increased my understanding of the clinical reasoning, Q3: The instructor put a good deal of effort into my learning for today's class, Q4: I had fun during today's 'Happy Families' group activity, Q5: Overall, the other members of my group made valuable contributions during the 'Happy Families' activity, Q6: The instructor seemed prepared for the 'Happy Families' activity, Q7: I would prefer to take a class that includes this 'Happy Families' activity over one that does not include today's group 'Happy Families' activity, Q8: I'm confident in my understanding of the material presented during today's 'Happy Families' activity, Q9: I made a valuable contribution to my group today, Q10: The instructor and assistants were available to answer questions during the 'Happy Families' activity, Q11: The 'Happy Families' activity increased my understanding of the clinical reasoning, Q12: I was focused during today's 'Happy Families' activity, Q13: The 'Happy Families' stimulated my interest in clinical reasoning, Q14: I worked hard during today's 'Happy Families' activity .

Wiggins B L, Eddy S L, Wener-Fligner L, Freisem K, Grunspan D Z, Theobald E J, Timbrook J, Crowe A J and Momsen J. ASPECT: A Survey to Assess Student Perspective of Engagement in an Active-Learning Classroom. CBE-Life Sciences Education. 2017;16(2):ar32

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar