Gerd Balser
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Gerd Balser has a total of 14 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Andreas Weimer
Clinic for Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, University Clinic Heidelberg, 69118 Heidelberg, Germany
1 shared publication - Christian Schamberger
Clinic for Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, 69118 Heidelberg, Germany
1 shared publication - Daniel Merkel
BIKUS—Brandenburg Institute for Clinical Ultrasound, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane (MHB), 16816 Neuruppin, Germany
1 shared publication - Florian Recker
University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Germany
1 shared publication - Gerhard Schmidmaier
Heidelberg Trauma Research Group, Clinic for Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, Centre for Orthopaedics, Trauma Surgery and Spinal Cord Injury, University Hospital Heidelberg, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
1 shared publication - Johannes Matthias Weimer
Rudolf Frey Learning Clinic, University Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, 55131 Mainz, Germany
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 20 October 2023
- Published by MDPI AG in Diagnostics
- Vol. 13 (20) , 3272
Digital Transformation in Musculoskeletal Ultrasound: Acceptability of Blended Learning
Background: ultrasound diagnostics have a broad spectrum of applications, including among diseases of the musculoskeletal system. Accordingly, it is important for the users to have a well-founded and up-to-date education in this dynamic examination method. The right balance between online and in-class teaching still needs to be explored in this context. Certifying institutions are currently testing digitally transformed teaching concepts to provide more evidence. Methods: this study compared two musculoskeletal ultrasound blended learning models. Model A was more traditional, with a focus on in-person teaching, while Model B was more digitally oriented with compulsory webinar. Both used e-learning for preparation. Participants completed evaluations using a seven-point Likert scale, later converted to a 0–1 scale. Digital teaching media (e-learning) were used for preparation in both courses. Results: the analysis included n = 41 evaluations for Model A and n = 30 for Model B. Model B received a better overall assessment (median: 0.73 vs. 0.69, p = 0.05). Model B also excelled in “course preparation” (p = 0.02), “webinar quality” (p = 0.04), and “course concept” (p = 0.04). The “gain of competence” (p = 0.82), “learning materials” (p = 0.30), and “tutor quality” (p = 0.28) showed no significant differences. Conclusion: participants favorably assessed blended learning in ultrasound teaching. Certifying institutions should consider accrediting models that combine digital methods (e.g., internet lectures/webinars) and materials (e.g., e-learning) with hands-on ultrasound training. Further research is needed to validate these subjective findings for a stronger evidential basis.
- 20 October 2023
- Published by MDPI AG in Diagnostics
- Vol. 13 (20) , 3272
Open AccessDigital Transformation in Musculoskeletal Ultrasound: Acceptability of Blended Learning
Background: ultrasound diagnostics have a broad spectrum of applications, including among diseases of the musculoskeletal system. Accordingly, it is important for the users to have a well-founded and up-to-date education in this dynamic examination method. The right balance between online and in-class teaching still needs to be explored in this context. Certifying institutions are currently testing digitally transformed teaching concepts to provide more evidence. Methods: this study compared two musculoskeletal ultrasound blended learning models. Model A was more traditional, with a focus on in-person teaching, while Model B was more digitally oriented with compulsory webinar. Both used e-learning for preparation. Participants completed evaluations using a seven-point Likert scale, later converted to a 0–1 scale. Digital teaching media (e-learning) were used for preparation in both courses. Results: the analysis included n = 41 evaluations for Model A and n = 30 for Model B. Model B received a better overall assessment (median: 0.73 vs. 0.69, p = 0.05). Model B also excelled in “course preparation” (p = 0.02), “webinar quality” (p = 0.04), and “course concept” (p = 0.04). The “gain of competence” (p = 0.82), “learning materials” (p = 0.30), and “tutor quality” (p = 0.28) showed no significant differences. Conclusion: participants favorably assessed blended learning in ultrasound teaching. Certifying institutions should consider accrediting models that combine digital methods (e.g., internet lectures/webinars) and materials (e.g., e-learning) with hands-on ultrasound training. Further research is needed to validate these subjective findings for a stronger evidential basis.