# A Comparative Evaluation of Student Perceptions of Binocular Loupes and Torchlights in Ophthalmology Skills Training for Undergraduate Medical Students: A Crossover Trial Employing a Mixed-Methods Approach

## TL;DR

This study compares how medical students learn ophthalmology skills using torchlights versus binocular loupes, finding that both are effective but loupes are preferred for being more engaging and easier to learn with.

## Contribution

The study introduces a mixed-methods crossover trial comparing binocular loupes and torchlights in undergraduate ophthalmology training, revealing student preferences and effectiveness differences.

## Key findings

- 90% of students felt confident and skilled after using either torchlights or binocular loupes.
- Binocular loupes were rated more interesting (75.4%) and easier for learning (62.3%) compared to torchlights.
- 95.7% of students rated binocular loupe sessions as good or excellent in quality.

## Abstract

Introduction

The Competency-Based Medical Education (CBME) framework in India prioritizes clinical skill acquisition in undergraduate training. Torchlight examination is traditionally used in ophthalmology education, while binocular loupes, offering magnification and stereopsis, may enhance learning. Their effectiveness at the undergraduate level has yet to be systematically compared.

Methods

Third-year MBBS students underwent interactive teaching sessions and were randomly assigned to two groups. Group A performed anterior chamber examination with a torchlight; Group B used a binocular loupe. Groups then exchanged tools. Students and facilitators completed structured Likert-scale questionnaires and provided open-ended feedback, analyzed thematically.

Results

Both modalities were positively received. Torchlight training led to 90% of students affirming improved confidence and skill transfer, most rating the sessions as good or excellent. Binocular loupe training was rated similarly, with 90% reporting confidence and skill enhancement, and 95.7% rating session quality as good. Comparative analysis revealed binocular loupes were considered more interesting (75.4%) and easier for learning (62.3%), with 37.7% finding them handier, though responses on convenience varied.

Conclusion

Torchlight and binocular loupe training each contributed to clinical skill advancement; however, students favoured binocular loupes for interest and ease of learning. Their inclusion, alongside torchlight, could increase engagement and strengthen ophthalmology training in undergraduate curricula.