Healthcare Economics and Information Literacy Resources for Success in Undergraduate Biomedical Engineering Education BACKGROUND OBJECTIVES Successful medical innovation requires navigating business hurdles including regulatory approval, reimbursement strategy, intellectual property, and marketing challenges [1]. Information literacy training provides students with strategies for discovering the wide range of resources for biomedical engineering design, which can be leveraged to generate more fully realized solutions [2]. In Spring 2016, the UNC/NC State Joint Department of Biomedical Engineering partnered with the NCSU Libraries to implement a more comprehensive information literacy training program to address these new competencies [3]. To evaluate this training, which was distributed across multiple courses within the undergraduate curriculum, we designed a three-arm cohort study. We hypothesize that this program will increase student’s awareness of healthcare economics, their achievement of intended learning outcomes, and their extent of information use. We hypothesize that extent of cited information use will correlate with achievement of learning outcomes. By conducting a cohort study, we seek to identify which aspects of this updated information literacy program lead to improvements in student achievement of desired learning outcomes. METHODS DISCUSSION NEXT STEPS REFERENCES [1] T. K. Grose, “Invention Roulette,” ASEE Prism, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 36–39, 2016. [2] Nerz, H., & Bullard, L. (2006). The literate engineer: Infusing information literacy skills throughout an engineering curriculum. In Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. [3] A. J. Carroll, A. J. DiMeo Sr., H. O. Ozturk, and J. McCall, “Work in Progress: Integrating Medical Economic Perspectives through Information Literacy in a Biomedical Clinical Immersion Design Course,” presented at the 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2017. [3] VentureWell, “DEBUT competition guidelines,” VentureWell, 21-Jan-2015. [Online]. Available: https://venturewell.org/guidelines/. [Accessed: 18-Oct-2017]. [4] National Institutes of Health, “Design by Biomedical Undergraduate Teams (DEBUT) Challenge,” National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, 22-May-2013. [Online]. Available: https://www.nibib.nih.gov/training-careers/undergraduate-graduate/design-biomedical- undergraduate-teams-debut-challenge. [Accessed: 17-Mar-2017]. AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS 1. NC State Libraries 2. UNC & NC State Joint Department of Biomedical Engineering 3. NC State Department of Graphic and Industrial Design GROUP AVERAGE TOTAL SCORE AVERAGE SOURCES CITED STANDARD DEVIATION RANGE CONTROL (n=5) 25.3 8 5.8 13 PHASE I (n=5) 31.3 7.8 9.0 22 PHASE II (n=7) 29.1 6.4 2.6 7 PHASE I + PHASE II (n = 12) 30.0 7.0 5.8 22 Analyzing overall student performance of learning outcomes using an unpaired, two-tailed t-test there was: -no statistically signifcant diference in performance between Phase I and Phase II (p = 0.1955) -a statistically signifcant diference in performance between the control group and the combined Phase I and Phase II groups (p = 0.0133) Analyzing student performance in Criteria 2 using an unpaired, two-tailed t-test there was: -no statistically signifcant diference in performance between Phase I and Phase II (p = 0.1248) -a statistically signifcant diference in performance between the control group and the combined Phase I and Phase II groups (p = 0.0157) This may suggest that while information literacy training can provide students with an increased understanding in the areas of healthcare economics, market research, and intellectual property, additional hands-on training in these topics may not lead to substantially increased student performance. Analyzing student citation patterns using an unpaired, two-tailed t-tests, we found no statistically signifcant diference in number of citations between any groups. When correlating student citation patterns with student performance using Pearson’s coefcient and a Student’s T distribution, we found a weak, positive, non-statistically signifcant correlation between number of citations and student performance on fnal assignments (r = 0.294, p = 0.25). The data suggest that training on information literacy alone may not lead to increases in the extent of information cited by students, and that a higher number of references does not necessarily correlate with increased performance in design projects. Alexander J. Carroll 1 Shelby J. Hallman 1 Dr. Andrew J. DiMeo Sr.2 James McCall2 Dr. Hatice Ozturk2 Kelly A. Umstead3 Table 2: Student Citations Table 1: Evaluation Criteria and Student Achievement of Learning Outcomes Figure 1: Student Performance (total score) and student performance (criteria 2 only) FINDINGS Students in each cohort worked in teams of approximately seven students, on average. The three groups are defned as: Control: students completing the program prior to implementation of updated information literacy training program Phase I: BME Class of 2017 Phase II: BME Class of 2018 Variables of interest: 1. Student achievement of four learning outcomes was assessed using rubrics, with a maximum score of 10 points available for each criteria (Table 1). Rubrics were designed using criteria measured at national BME design competitions [3-4]. A random sample of student assignments from the BME Class of 2014 and Class of 2016 were selected as a control; these are measured against a sample of student assignments from Phase I and Phase II (Table 1). 2. Student citation patterns in fnal assignments were analyzed to measure changes in extent of information use (Table 2). DEBUT CRITERIA STUDENT BEHAVIOR Does the entry address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in clinical care or research? Is it likely that the entry will exert a sustained, powerful influence on the problem and medical field addressed? Does the entry utilize novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, or instrumentation? Has evidence been provided (results, graphs, photographs, films, etc.) that a working prototype has been achieved? Justifies the problem addressed by explaining the impact on potential users and clinical care Evaluates the design concepts for market potential, economic feasibility, and patentability Designs the product as a creative response to a need, the functionality of which is driven by people Applies engineering knowledge and skills to build a working prototype OUTCOMES CONTROL (n=5) PHASE I (n=5) PHASE II (n=7) COMBINED PHASE I + PHASE II (n=12) 6.4 7.6 7.6 7.5 7.3 7.4 5.6 7.6 6.7 6.5 8.2 7.1 7.0 7.1 6.8 7.9 25.3 31.3 29.1 30.0 TOTAL SCORE 2 5 .3 3 0 .0 10 20 30 40 50 * otal Score * p=0.0133 CONTROL COMBINED PHASES 5.6 7.0 2 4 6 8 10 * Criteria 2 * p=0.0157 Next steps may include repeating our Phase II treatment with the Class of 2019 to increase our experimental group sample size, and adding additional historical student projects into our control group. Based on the success seen with Phase I we may also investigate applying this instructional intervention with afliated academic programs at NC State that feature design projects, including Industrial Design and the Engineering Entrepreneurship Program.