EthicsNCT03241693
Blended-learning in Physiotherapy: Professional Ethics
A study testing blended-learning in ethics in people with Ethics and Attitude, run by University of Valencia.
Trial summary
The aim of this study was to assess the effect of a blended-learning model on physiotherapy students´ attitude, knowledge and opinions towards learning professional ethics. A simple-blind clinical trial was performed. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
- What is being tested?
- blended-learning in ethics
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 130 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Sep 2010to Jun 2011
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- To study the physical therapy degree at the University of Valencia
Who cannot join
- Exclusion criterion was having prior training on Ethics subject
About this study
Official title: Effect of a Blended-learning Programme on Physiotherapy Students´ Attitude, Knowledge and Opinions Towards Learning Professional Ethics.
The aim of this study was to assess the effect of a blended-learning model on physiotherapy students´ attitude, knowledge and opinions towards learning professional ethics.
A simple-blind clinical trial was performed. An eight-month blended learning program to teach professional ethics in clinical practices was worked out. An online syllabus and online activities were elaborated, whilst face to face active participation techniques were performed to discuss ethical issues detected among practices. Students´ attitudes, knowledge and opinions towards learning professional ethics were assessed. Non-parametric tests were carried out. All the participants were informed about the study and procedures, and provided written informed consent.
Read the detailed description
Participants. 139 third-year degree students of Physiotherapy Degree at the University, aged between 20 and 30 years, were recruited voluntarily from September 2010 to July 2011. All enrolled participants were informed of the purpose of the study and procedures, and provided written informed consent. The study was carried out at the institution where the authors belong.
Research design. A prospective simple-blind trial was performed. After baseline assessment, participants were allocated to one of the two groups (control group, n=65; experimental group, n=64). An external assistant not involved in the study performed assignment.
Intervention. A Physiotherapy professor with over-10-year experience in Ethics and Physiotherapy performed the teaching methodology. She opened the allocation envelopes and applied the teaching methodology to the EG according to the group assignment. The intervention consisted of an eight-month blended-learning program based in professional ethics, including two phases: A) online syllabus and online activities (4 months); and B) face to face group sessions (4 months).
- Being tested
- blended-learning in ethics, control group
- Medical subject headings
- Behavior
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
blended-learning in ethicsOther
Experimental group followed clinical practices in hospital centers during 8 months.
In addition, an online specific syllabus about Professional Ethics was developed. It consisted of 6 themes and included topics as moral values, ethics and moral, bioethics and professional ethics, ecc. Six online related activities were created: to solve situations related to real clinical practices. Six face to face group sessions based on cooperative learning were planned in order to discuss ethical issues detected among clinical practices during 4 months. Students were divided in small groups, 4-5 participants each, and active participation techniques were used.
control groupOther
Control group followed clinical practices in hospital centers during 8 months as usual.
In the control group, case study method was also used, thus students in control group had to create and perform a public exposition of a real clinical case about professional ethics. Cases had to be related to clinical practices in order to recognize ethical situations in the work environment. Neither online learning nor online activities were carried out.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| control group | Other | Physiotherapy students Receives: Other: control group |
| experimental group | Experimental | Physiotherapy students Receives: Other: blended-learning in ethics |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Attitude towards learning professional ethics
Attitude towards learning professional ethics was measured. A self-reported questionnaire of 33 items (the "Attitudes Questionnaire towards Professional Ethics in Physiotherapy", AQPEPT) was previously described by Aguilar-Rodríguez et al. A high reliability (Cronbach's alpha=0.898) was obtained. All items of the AQPEPT approached to the one-dimensionality needed in cases where attitudes are analyzed.The higher score indicated the best attitude.
Measured: 8 months
Secondary outcomes (2)
Knowledge towards learning professional ethics
Knowledge towards learning professional ethics was assessed. A self-reported questionnaire of 19 items (the "Perceptions about Knowledge regarding Professional Ethics in Physiotherapy", PKPEP , Cronbach's alpha=0,760) was previously described by Marques-Sule et al. The higher score indicated the best knowledge.
Measured: 4 months, 8 months
Opinions about the blended-learning programme.
Students´ opinions about the blended-learning programme were measured. Opinions about the online learning were assessed by a questionnaire comprised of eight dichotomous questions and one open question. The eight dichotomous questions aimed at evaluating if the syllabus, activities and communication system (Virtual Classroom) were considered as useful tools or not. No central options were provided to induce students to choose a positive or negative answer. Moreover, the open question aimed at adding any personal comment about the methodology. Secondly, opinions about the methodology used in the face-to-face group sessions were assessed by a questionnaire comprised of five items and one open question. Several questions about the blended-learning program were proposed: methodology of the face-to-face learning (2 items), methodology used along the study (3 items), and an open question about how to improve the teaching of professional ethics.
Measured: 4 months, 8 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted7 Aug 2017
- Study startSep 2010
- Primary completionFeb 2011
- Study completionJun 2011
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for EthicsStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 130 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Valencia
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Elena Marques-Sule, University of Valencia
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03241693
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 45/FO/18/2010
- Status last verified
- May 2023
- First submitted
- 25 Jul 2017
- Last updated
- 11 May 2023
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 11 May 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Effect of a Blended-learning Programme on Physiotherapy Students´ Attitude, Knowledge and Opinions Towards Learning Professional Ethics.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03241693
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 45/FO/18/2010
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 130 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of ValenciaUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Sep 2010 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Feb 2011 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jun 2011 (actual)
- First posted
- 7 Aug 2017 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The aim of this study was to assess the effect of a blended-learning model on physiotherapy students´ attitude, knowledge and opinions towards learning professional ethics.
A simple-blind clinical trial was performed. An eight-month blended learning program to teach professional ethics in clinical practices was worked out. An online syllabus and online activities were elaborated, whilst face to face active participation techniques were performed to discuss ethical issues detected among practices. Students´ attitudes, knowledge and opinions towards learning professional ethics were assessed. Non-parametric tests were carried out. All the participants were informed about the study and procedures, and provided written informed consent.
Detailed description
Participants. 139 third-year degree students of Physiotherapy Degree at the University, aged between 20 and 30 years, were recruited voluntarily from September 2010 to July 2011. All enrolled participants were informed of the purpose of the study and procedures, and provided written informed consent. The study was carried out at the institution where the authors belong.
Research design. A prospective simple-blind trial was performed. After baseline assessment, participants were allocated to one of the two groups (control group, n=65; experimental group, n=64). An external assistant not involved in the study performed assignment.
Intervention. A Physiotherapy professor with over-10-year experience in Ethics and Physiotherapy performed the teaching methodology. She opened the allocation envelopes and applied the teaching methodology to the EG according to the group assignment. The intervention consisted of an eight-month blended-learning program based in professional ethics, including two phases: A) online syllabus and online activities (4 months); and B) face to face group sessions (4 months).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| control group | Other | Other: control groupPhysiotherapy students |
| experimental group | Experimental | Other: blended-learning in ethicsPhysiotherapy students |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- To study the physical therapy degree at the University of Valencia
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Exclusion criterion was having prior training on Ethics subject
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| blended-learning in ethicsExperimental group followed clinical practices in hospital centers during 8 months. In addition, an online specific syllabus about Professional Ethics was developed. It consisted of 6 themes and included topics as moral values, ethics and moral, bioethics and professional ethics, ecc. Six online related activities were created: to solve situations related to real clinical practices. Six face to face group sessions based on cooperative learning were planned in order to discuss ethical issues detected among clinical practices during 4 months. Students were divided in small groups, 4-5 participants each, and active participation techniques were used. | Other | experimental group |
| control groupControl group followed clinical practices in hospital centers during 8 months as usual. In the control group, case study method was also used, thus students in control group had to create and perform a public exposition of a real clinical case about professional ethics. Cases had to be related to clinical practices in order to recognize ethical situations in the work environment. Neither online learning nor online activities were carried out. | Other | control group |
Primary outcome
Attitude towards learning professional ethics
Time frame: 8 months
Attitude towards learning professional ethics was measured. A self-reported questionnaire of 33 items (the "Attitudes Questionnaire towards Professional Ethics in Physiotherapy", AQPEPT) was previously described by Aguilar-Rodríguez et al. A high reliability (Cronbach's alpha=0.898) was obtained. All items of the AQPEPT approached to the one-dimensionality needed in cases where attitudes are analyzed.The higher score indicated the best attitude.
2 secondary outcomes
Knowledge towards learning professional ethics
Time frame: 4 months, 8 months
Opinions about the blended-learning programme.
Time frame: 4 months, 8 months
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 11 May 2023.
Related trials for Ethics
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Assisted Suicide in Switzerland
Assisted Suicide
RecruitingObservational study
Life Sustaining Treatments in Critically Ill Children
Critical Illness, Ethics
Recruiting
Testing a New Method to Improve Informed Consent in Prison Research
ADHD
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Mobilization of Emotions and Empathy During Communication Training in Nursing Students
Education Nursing, Communication Skills
Active, not recruiting
The Role of 4 Different Consent Approaches on a Pilot Study to Increase Cardiac Rehabilitation Attendance
Ethics, Cardiac Rehabilitation
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing blended-learning in ethics in people with Ethics and Attitude, run by University of Valencia.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 11 May 2023. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Attitude towards learning professional ethics (time frame: 8 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 11 May 2023.