Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 13, 2025
Methods for Rapid Transfer and Localization of Lyme Disease Pathogens Within the Tick Gut
Published on: February 14, 2011
E-learning versus face-to-face training: Comparison of two learning methods for Lyme borreliosis
M Gaudin1, G Tanguy2, M Plagne1
1Infectious and Tropical Diseases Department, Clermont-Ferrand University Hospital Center, Reference Center for Osteoarticular Infections, Regional Reference Center for Tick-Based Vector Diseases, Genome and Environment Microorganisms Laboratory, Clermont Auvergne University, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Objectives:
To compare two learning methods for Lyme disease (e-learning versus face-to-face training) to assess knowledge and know-how.
Methods:
The study population was volunteer general medicine residents and family physicians (FP). Face-to-face training on Lyme disease was offered to each group. E-learning training was then offered to those who had not attended the face-to-face training. Theoretical knowledge was assessed by an identical pre- and post-test questionnaire and know-how by a script concordance test.
Results:
Seventy learners (47 FPs and 23 general medicine residents) were included in the face-to-face training group and 61 (33 FPs and 28 general medicine residents) in the e-learning group. The pre- and post-test scores were significantly improved in the FP group (difference of 29.3±1.9 [P<0.0001] out of 100) as well as in the general medicine resident group (difference of 38.2±2.7 [P<0.0001] out of 100). E-learning was more effective than face-to-face training, particularly among general medicine residents (progression of mean difference of 44.3±3.4/100 vs. 30.9±4.0/100; P=0.0138) and to a lesser extent among FPs (progression of 25.3±2.3/100 vs. 31.9±2.7/100; P=0.0757). Forty-six script concordance tests were completed by FPs and 20 by general medicine residents. Script concordance test results did not seem significant between the subgroups.
Conclusions:
E-learning seems to be a good alternative to face-to-face training for Lyme disease. It seems to be more effective than face-to-face training for the acquisition of theoretical knowledge. The script concordance test evaluation of know-how did not show any difference between the two learning methods.
