Which novel teaching strategy is most recommended in medical education? A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH BMC Medical Education Pub Date : 2024-11-21 DOI:10.1186/s12909-024-06291-4
Shuai-Long Zhang, Si-Jing Ren, Dong-Mei Zhu, Tian-Yao Liu, Lian Wang, Jing-Hui Zhao, Xiao-Tang Fan, Hong Gong
{"title":"Which novel teaching strategy is most recommended in medical education? A systematic review and network meta-analysis.","authors":"Shuai-Long Zhang, Si-Jing Ren, Dong-Mei Zhu, Tian-Yao Liu, Lian Wang, Jing-Hui Zhao, Xiao-Tang Fan, Hong Gong","doi":"10.1186/s12909-024-06291-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>There is no conclusive evidence which one is the optimal methodology for enhancing the quality and efficacy of learning for medical students. Therefore, this systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to evaluate and prioritize various teaching strategies in medical education, including simulation-based learning (SBL), flipped classrooms (FC), problem-based learning (PBL), team-based learning (TBL), case-based learning (CBL), and bridge-in, objective, pre-assessment, participatory learning, post-assessment, and summary (BOPPPS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a comprehensive systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and some key medical education journals up to November 31, 2023. The following keywords were searched in MeSH: (\"medical students\") AND (\"problem-based learning\" OR \"problem solving\") AND (\"Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic\"). Two authors independently carried out data extraction and quality assessment from the final selection of records following a full-text assessment based on strict eligibility criteria. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were then applied to calculate pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) using a random-effects model. Statistical analysis was performed by R software (4.3.1) and Stata 14 software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 80 randomized controlled trials with 6,180 students were included in the study. Compared to LBL, CBL (SMD = 1.19; 95% CI 0.49-1.90; p < 0.05; SUCRA = 89.4%), PBL (SMD = 3.37; 95% CI 1.23-5.51; p < 0.05; SUCRA = 93.3%), and SBL (SMD = 2.64; 95% CI 1.28-4.00; p < 0.05; SUCRA = 96.2%) were identified as the most effective methods in enhancing theoretical test scores, experimental or practical test scores, and students' satisfaction scores, respectively. Furthermore, subgroup analysis indicated that CBL (SUCRA = 97.7%) and PBL (SUCRA = 60.3%) were the most effective method for enhancing learning effectiveness within clinical curricula.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Among the six novel teaching strategies evaluated, CBL and PBL are more effective in enhancing the quality and efficacy of learning for medical students; SBL was determined to offer a superior learning experience throughout the educational process. However, this analysis revealed only minor differences among those novel teaching strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":51234,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Education","volume":"24 1","pages":"1342"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11583476/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06291-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: There is no conclusive evidence which one is the optimal methodology for enhancing the quality and efficacy of learning for medical students. Therefore, this systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to evaluate and prioritize various teaching strategies in medical education, including simulation-based learning (SBL), flipped classrooms (FC), problem-based learning (PBL), team-based learning (TBL), case-based learning (CBL), and bridge-in, objective, pre-assessment, participatory learning, post-assessment, and summary (BOPPPS).

Methods: We conducted a comprehensive systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and some key medical education journals up to November 31, 2023. The following keywords were searched in MeSH: ("medical students") AND ("problem-based learning" OR "problem solving") AND ("Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic"). Two authors independently carried out data extraction and quality assessment from the final selection of records following a full-text assessment based on strict eligibility criteria. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were then applied to calculate pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) using a random-effects model. Statistical analysis was performed by R software (4.3.1) and Stata 14 software.

Results: A total of 80 randomized controlled trials with 6,180 students were included in the study. Compared to LBL, CBL (SMD = 1.19; 95% CI 0.49-1.90; p < 0.05; SUCRA = 89.4%), PBL (SMD = 3.37; 95% CI 1.23-5.51; p < 0.05; SUCRA = 93.3%), and SBL (SMD = 2.64; 95% CI 1.28-4.00; p < 0.05; SUCRA = 96.2%) were identified as the most effective methods in enhancing theoretical test scores, experimental or practical test scores, and students' satisfaction scores, respectively. Furthermore, subgroup analysis indicated that CBL (SUCRA = 97.7%) and PBL (SUCRA = 60.3%) were the most effective method for enhancing learning effectiveness within clinical curricula.

Conclusions: Among the six novel teaching strategies evaluated, CBL and PBL are more effective in enhancing the quality and efficacy of learning for medical students; SBL was determined to offer a superior learning experience throughout the educational process. However, this analysis revealed only minor differences among those novel teaching strategies.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
医学教育中最推荐哪种新型教学策略?系统综述和网络荟萃分析。
目的:目前尚无确凿证据表明哪种方法是提高医学生学习质量和效率的最佳方法。因此,本系统综述和网络荟萃分析旨在评估医学教育中的各种教学策略,包括基于模拟的学习(SBL)、翻转课堂(FC)、基于问题的学习(PBL)、基于团队的学习(TBL)、基于案例的学习(CBL),以及桥接式、客观式、预评估、参与式学习、后评估和总结(BOPPPS),并确定优先次序:我们对截至 2023 年 11 月 31 日的 PubMed、Embase、Web of Science、Cochrane Library 和一些重要的医学教育期刊进行了全面系统的检索。在 MeSH 中检索了以下关键词:("医学生")和("基于问题的学习 "或 "问题解决")和("作为主题的随机对照试验")。两位作者根据严格的资格标准对全文进行评估后,从最终筛选出的记录中独立进行数据提取和质量评估。然后进行配对分析和网络荟萃分析,利用随机效应模型计算汇总的标准化均值差异(SMDs)和 95% 可信区间(95%CIs)。统计分析由 R 软件(4.3.1)和 Stata 14 软件完成:研究共纳入了 80 项随机对照试验,涉及 6 180 名学生。与LBL相比,CBL(SMD = 1.19;95% CI 0.49-1.90;P 结论:CBL的效果优于LBL:在所评估的六种新型教学策略中,CBL 和 PBL 能更有效地提高医学生的学习质量和效果;SBL 被认为能在整个教学过程中提供更优越的学习体验。然而,这项分析表明,这些新型教学策略之间的差异很小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Education
BMC Medical Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
795
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Education is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the training of healthcare professionals, including undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing education. The journal has a special focus on curriculum development, evaluations of performance, assessment of training needs and evidence-based medicine.
期刊最新文献
Medical students' perceptions of a community-engaged learning approach to community health in Ghana: the Students' Community Engagement Programme (SCEP). Medical students' perspectives of reflection for their professional development. Perception of undergraduate medical students and examiners towards grand objective structured clinical examination. Satisfaction and learning experience of students using online learning platforms for medical education. Using the adaptive action method to tackle wicked problems in rural faculty development.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1