Survey Study on the Impact of Pulse Diagnosis Device Implementation on Understanding and Proficiency in Pulse Diagnosis and Strategies for Improving the Educational Environment in a Korean Medical Diagnostics Course

Le résumé fourni par la source

Objectives: Pulse diagnosis, a tactile method, is limited in expressibility and heavily reliant on practitioner experience, making it subjective and challenging for new learners. Pulse diagnosis devices were developed to address these issues, yet studies on their educational use remain limited. This study explores limitations in pulse diagnosis training for Korean medical students and examines changes in understanding and proficiency after device use.Methods: This survey study included 90 students from a diagnostic practice course at a Korean medical college in 2024. A 42-question survey assessed educational improvements, changes in understanding and proficiency, and evaluated the device, with participation limited to volunteers.Results: A total of 40 students responded. Most found the pulse diagnosis device helpful for improving knowledge and proficiency, though limited practice time was noted as an area needing improvement. After practicing with the pulse diagnosis device, both understanding and proficiency improved overall, with notable gains in proficiency, especially for superficial and deep pulses. Slippery and hesitant pulses remained the most challenging. The primary difficulty students faced in studying pulse diagnosis was a lack of standardization, though 66.7% reported improvement after practice. While measurement challenges were the most common drawback, 97.5% expressed satisfaction with the device, and 75.0% showed willingness to use it clinically.Conclusions: Integrating pulse diagnosis devices in courses improves students’ understanding and proficiency, supporting their educational value. Expanding applications, such as incorporating pattern identification in future device training, may further enrich pulse diagnosis education.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.