Application of the BOPPPS-CBL model in emergency chest pain management teaching for resident physicians: a randomized comparison.

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH BMC Medical Education Pub Date : 2025-03-13 DOI:10.1186/s12909-025-06939-9
Fan Jia, Min Wang, Qingbo Lv, Duanbin Li, Hangpan Jiang, Guosheng Fu, Wenbin Zhang
{"title":"Application of the BOPPPS-CBL model in emergency chest pain management teaching for resident physicians: a randomized comparison.","authors":"Fan Jia, Min Wang, Qingbo Lv, Duanbin Li, Hangpan Jiang, Guosheng Fu, Wenbin Zhang","doi":"10.1186/s12909-025-06939-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Chest pain is very common in emergency department. The management of chest pain is a priority for resident physicians. This study aimed to verify the teaching effects of the combination of bridge-in, objective, preassessment, participatory learning, post-assessment, and summary and case-based learning (BOPPPS-CBL) model in emergency chest pain management teaching for resident physicians.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This randomized controlled trial study enrolled 118 resident physicians undergoing standardized training during their Cardiology Department rotation. They were randomized in two groups: traditional lecture-based learning (LBL) group and BOPPPS-CBL group. Pre-class test (30 points), post-class test (30 points), Mini clinical evaluation exercise (Mini-CEX), and direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS) were analyzed. The satisfaction of two teaching models and self-adjustment by two groups were further analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 118 resident physicians were enrolled and the mean age was 26.96 years and 57.6% were males. There was no statistical difference in the pre-class test scores between two groups (17.03 ± 4.16 vs. 17.08 ± 3.87, P = 0.945). BOPPPS-CBL group's post-class test, Mini-CEX and DOPS total scores were significantly higher than those of the LBL group (all P < 0.05). Additionally, the satisfaction and self-adjustment ability of resident physicians in the BOPPPS-CBL group were significantly higher than those in the LBL group (all P < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The BOPPPS-CBL model could be an effective teaching method in emergency chest pain management teaching for resident physicians.</p>","PeriodicalId":51234,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Education","volume":"25 1","pages":"378"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11907819/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-06939-9","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

Background: Chest pain is very common in emergency department. The management of chest pain is a priority for resident physicians. This study aimed to verify the teaching effects of the combination of bridge-in, objective, preassessment, participatory learning, post-assessment, and summary and case-based learning (BOPPPS-CBL) model in emergency chest pain management teaching for resident physicians.

Methods: This randomized controlled trial study enrolled 118 resident physicians undergoing standardized training during their Cardiology Department rotation. They were randomized in two groups: traditional lecture-based learning (LBL) group and BOPPPS-CBL group. Pre-class test (30 points), post-class test (30 points), Mini clinical evaluation exercise (Mini-CEX), and direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS) were analyzed. The satisfaction of two teaching models and self-adjustment by two groups were further analyzed.

Results: A total of 118 resident physicians were enrolled and the mean age was 26.96 years and 57.6% were males. There was no statistical difference in the pre-class test scores between two groups (17.03 ± 4.16 vs. 17.08 ± 3.87, P = 0.945). BOPPPS-CBL group's post-class test, Mini-CEX and DOPS total scores were significantly higher than those of the LBL group (all P < 0.05). Additionally, the satisfaction and self-adjustment ability of resident physicians in the BOPPPS-CBL group were significantly higher than those in the LBL group (all P < 0.05).

Conclusion: The BOPPPS-CBL model could be an effective teaching method in emergency chest pain management teaching for resident physicians.

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
BOPPPS-CBL 模型在住院医生急诊胸痛管理教学中的应用:随机比较。
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
Assessment of centrifugation knowledge among medical laboratory personnel: a survey-based study. The impostor phenomenon among surgeons and surgeons in training: a scoping review. Clinical education: nursing students' experiences with multisource feedback using a digital assessment instrument in the emergency medical Service - a qualitative study. A short elective supports the attitudes of medicine and pharmacy students towards interprofessional learning: a pre-post design. Building a health systems science bridge between medical school and the clinical learning environment via a pilot faculty development cohort program.
×
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