Original Article

A Game Show–Based Curriculum for Teaching Principles of Reproductive Infectious Disease (GBS PRIDE Trial)

Authors: Sharlay K. Butler, MD, Megan A. Runge, MS, Magdy P. Milad, MD, MS


Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether a game show–based curriculum improves obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) residents’ confidence in and understanding of the principles of reproductive infectious disease (RID), clinical manifestations and sequelae of sexually transmitted infection (STI), and management of serious long-term consequences of STIs.

Methods: A game show–based curriculum was developed from the basic principles of RID, which include the following: (1) distinguishing between clinical manifestations of STIs and management of long-term sequelae of STIs; (2) evaluation and management of common gynecologic infectious diseases, including chronic vaginitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, and other pelvic infections; (3) diagnosis and management of perinatal infectious diseases, such as parvovirus, varicella-zoster virus, cytomegalovirus, human immunodeficiency virus, toxoplasmosis, and infection-mediated prematurity; (4) evaluation and management of obstetric and gynecologic postoperative infections; and (5) diagnosis and management of acute and chronic human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C virus infections in pregnancy. OBGYN residents at a large urban academic training program were randomized to either a Jeopardy-style educational game show intervention plus a traditional didactic-based curriculum or traditional didactic-based curriculum alone. The study team recruited participants by sending out an e-mail to all of the residents, detailing the study and consent process. Participants from both the intervention and control groups completed confidence and knowledge-based pretests. Posttests were administered 4 weeks after completion of the pretests. Statistical methods were applied to analyze the data.

Results: Thirty-eight residents were randomized to a Jeopardy-style game show–based educational intervention (n = 19) or to a traditional didactic-based curriculum (n = 19). All of the participants (100%) completed the pre- and posttests. Pretest median scores were similar between both groups, in which the Jeopardy group had a median score of 48.5 and the traditional group had a median score of 51.4 (P = 0.091). The Jeopardy group median test scores improved between the pretest and posttest (48.5 vs 62.8, P ≤ 0.001). The traditional didactic-based curriculum had a minimal increase in its median posttest scores (51.4 compared with 54.2, P = 0.773). The Jeopardy group had significantly higher posttest median scores and confidence scores than the traditional didactic-based curriculum (Jeopardy = 62.8, traditional = 54.2, P = 0.002).

Conclusions: A game show–based curriculum improves OBGYN residents’ confidence and retention of knowledge regarding RIDs, clinical manifestations and sequelae of STIs, and management of serious long-term consequences of STIs. Additional studies that include longer posttest time intervals are needed to assess the longer-term impact of game show–based curriculum on knowledge retention among OBGYN residents.
Posted in: Sexually Transmitted Diseases & Infections of Reproductive Organs2

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first.

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view your purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($15)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.


1. Mokadam NA, Lee R, Vaporciyan AA, et al. Gamification in thoracic surgical education: using competition to fuel performance. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015;150:1052–1058. 2. Cusick J. A Jeopardy-style review game using team clickers. MedEdPORTAL 2016;12:10485. 3. Blakely G, Skirton H, Cooper S, et al. Educational gaming in the health sciences: systematic review. J Adv Nurs 2009;65:259–269. 4. Aburahma MH, Mohamed HM. Educational games as a teaching tool in pharmacy curriculum. Am J Pharm Educ 2015;79:59. 5. Webb TP, Simpson D, Denson S, et al. Gaming used as an informal instructional technique: effects on learner knowledge and satisfaction. J Surg Educ 2012;69:330–334. 6. Brown PC, Roediger HL, McDaniel MA. Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 2014. 7. Lumsden J, Edwards EA, Lawrence NS, et al. Gamification of cognitive assessment and cognitive training: a systematic review of applications and efficacy. JMIR Serious Games 2016;4:e11. 8. Plass J, Homer B, Kinzer CK. Foundations of game-based learning. Educ Psychol 2015;50:258–283. 9. Beigi RH, Switzer GE, Presley L, et al. Awareness of infectious diseases in obstetrics and gynecology among residents and residency directors. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol 2006;2006:42967. 10. Martens MG. Evaluation of infectious disease knowledge in obstetrics and gynecology and the effects of varying durations of training. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol 1993;1:118–122. 11. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009;42:377–381. 12. Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, et al. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software partners. J Biomed Inform 2019;95:103208. 13. Bhoopathi PS, Sheoran R, Adams CE. Educational games for mental health professionals: a Cochrane review. Int J Psychiatr Nurs Res 2007;12:1497–1502. 14. Jirasevijinda T, Brown LC. Jeopardy!: an innovative approach to teach psychosocial aspects of pediatrics. Patient Educ Couns 2010;80:333–336. 15. University of Washington Center for Teaching and Learning. Constructing tests. https://www.washington.edu/teaching/topics/preparing-to-teach/constructing-tests. Accessed August 31, 2020. 16. D’Alessandro DM, Ellsbury DL, Kreiter CD, et al. Pediatric Jeopardy may increase residents’ medical reading. Ambul Pediatr 2002;2:1–3. 17. Boctor L. Active-learning strategies: the use of a game to reinforce learning in nursing education. A case study. Nurse Educ Pract 2013;13:96–100. 18. O’Leary S, Diepenhorst L, Churley-Strom R, et al. Educational games in an obstetrics and gynecology core curriculum. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;193:1848–1851. 19. Lewis P, McNulty N. Radiology Jeopardy/blank Jeopardy template. MedEdPORTAL 2010;6:8209. 20. Parmelee DX, Michaelsen LK. Twelve tips for doing effective team-based learning (TBL). Med Teach 2010;32:118–122. 21. Harriott M. Who wants to be a nervous system infection genius: a case-based microbiology game on nervous system infections. MedEdPORTAL 2013;9:9617. 22. Khan MN, Telmesani A, Alkhotani A, et al. Comparison of Jeopardy game format versus traditional lecture format as a teaching methodology in medical education. Saudi Med J 2011;32:1172–1176. 23. Akl EA, Sackett KM, Erdley WS, et al. Educational games for health professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;1:CD006411. 24. Royse MA, Newton SE. How GAMING is used as an innovative strategy for nursing education. Nurs Educ Perspect 2007;28:263–267. 25. Duque G, Fung S, Mallet L, et al. Learning while having fun: the use of video gaming to teach geriatric house calls to medical students. J Am Geriatr Soc 2008;56:1328–1332. 26. Gelman A. Benefits and limitations of randomized controlled trials: a commentary on Deaton and Cartwright. Soc Sci Med 2018;210:48–49. 27. Schrope M. Solving tough problems with games. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2013;110:7104–7106. 28. Ming L, Vermillion M. Comparative values of medical school assessments in the prediction of internship performance. Med Teach 2018;40:1287–1292. 29. Carr SE, Celenza A, Mercer AM, et al. Predicting performance of junior doctors: Association of workplace based assessment with demographic characteristics, emotional intelligence, selection scores, and undergraduate academic performance. Med Teach 2018;40:1175–1182.