BACKGROUND: The evidence supporting the effectiveness of educational games in graduate medical education is limited. Anecdotal reports suggest their popularity in that setting. The objective of this study was to explore the support for and the different aspects of use of educational games in family medicine and internal medicine residency programs in the United States. METHODS: We conducted a survey of family medicine and internal medicine residency program directors in the United States. The questionnaire asked the program directors whether they supported the use of educational games, their actual use of games, and the type of games being used and the purpose of that use. RESULTS: Of 434 responding program directors (52% response rate), 92% were in support of the use of games as an educational strategy, and 80% reported already using them in their programs. Jeopardy like games were the most frequently used games (78%). The use of games was equally popular in family medicine and internal medicine residency programs and popularity was inversely associated with more than 75% of residents in the program being International Medical Graduates. The percentage of program directors who reported using educational games as teaching tools, review tools, and evaluation tools were 62%, 47%, and 4% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Given a widespread use of educational games in the training of medical residents, in spite of limited evidence for efficacy, further evaluation of the best approaches to education games should be explored.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Number of pages||1|
|Journal||BMC medical education|
|State||Published - 2010|
Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
We thank Ann Grifasi, Ethel Sharp, Denise McGuigan, and Karen Devlin for their administrative assistance. We also thank all directors of family medicine residency and internal medicine programs who contributed to this study. Research for Health in Erie County, Inc., the Graduate Medical Education of the University at Buffalo, and the Society of General Internal Medicine (through a Founders Award to EAA) funded this study. The sponsors had no role in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; and in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.