Bridging the gaps in problem-based learning: an evidence-based intervention in bachelor of medicine and surgery (MBBS) program.

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH BMC Medical Education Pub Date : 2025-03-20 DOI:10.1186/s12909-025-07003-2
Himayat Ullah, Sarwat Huma, Lubna Naeem, Mohammed Yunus, Junaid Sarfraz
{"title":"Bridging the gaps in problem-based learning: an evidence-based intervention in bachelor of medicine and surgery (MBBS) program.","authors":"Himayat Ullah, Sarwat Huma, Lubna Naeem, Mohammed Yunus, Junaid Sarfraz","doi":"10.1186/s12909-025-07003-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Problem-based learning (PBL) is one of medical education's most effective student-centered learning modalities. However, a lack of experience has led to several gaps in this useful learning modality, prohibiting it from achieving the desired goals. This study aimed to find gaps in our institution's PBL strategy, take measures to fill these gaps, and then assess the effect of these measures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This interventional study was conducted in a Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery (MBBS) program after receiving ethical approval. The study consisted of three phases: gap identification, intervention, and evaluation. Faculty and student training sessions were conducted to provide insight into PBL processes, followed by a Quality Assessment Questionnaire (QAQ) to assess PBL design and delivery gaps. A PBL revision committee then used the 3C3R model to redesign 136 PBLs, improving alignment with learning outcomes. Pre- and post-intervention scores from the QAQ and formative assessments were analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-rank and paired t-tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Pre-intervention QAQ scores averaged 2.7 out of 5, reflecting issues PBL problems and conduction. Post-intervention scores improved to 4.0 (p <.001), indicating a 48.1% enhancement in perceived PBL quality. Post-PBL formative assessments showed significant score improvements across blocks, with an overall effect size (Cohen's d) of -0.54. Student and faculty satisfaction ratings also increased, averaging 4.3 and 4.8, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Due to practical novelty, PBL may have certain gaps and deficiencies that must be removed by targeted interventions to achieve the desired outcomes of this state-of-the-art learning strategy.</p><p><strong>Trial number: </strong>Not applicable.</p>","PeriodicalId":51234,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Education","volume":"25 1","pages":"410"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07003-2","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

Introduction: Problem-based learning (PBL) is one of medical education's most effective student-centered learning modalities. However, a lack of experience has led to several gaps in this useful learning modality, prohibiting it from achieving the desired goals. This study aimed to find gaps in our institution's PBL strategy, take measures to fill these gaps, and then assess the effect of these measures.

Methods: This interventional study was conducted in a Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery (MBBS) program after receiving ethical approval. The study consisted of three phases: gap identification, intervention, and evaluation. Faculty and student training sessions were conducted to provide insight into PBL processes, followed by a Quality Assessment Questionnaire (QAQ) to assess PBL design and delivery gaps. A PBL revision committee then used the 3C3R model to redesign 136 PBLs, improving alignment with learning outcomes. Pre- and post-intervention scores from the QAQ and formative assessments were analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-rank and paired t-tests.

Results: Pre-intervention QAQ scores averaged 2.7 out of 5, reflecting issues PBL problems and conduction. Post-intervention scores improved to 4.0 (p <.001), indicating a 48.1% enhancement in perceived PBL quality. Post-PBL formative assessments showed significant score improvements across blocks, with an overall effect size (Cohen's d) of -0.54. Student and faculty satisfaction ratings also increased, averaging 4.3 and 4.8, respectively.

Conclusion: Due to practical novelty, PBL may have certain gaps and deficiencies that must be removed by targeted interventions to achieve the desired outcomes of this state-of-the-art learning strategy.

Trial number: Not applicable.

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
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
Understanding healthcare efficiency-an AI-supported narrative review of diverse terminologies used. A scoping review of interprofessional education in healthcare: evaluating competency development, educational outcomes and challenges. Bridging the gaps in problem-based learning: an evidence-based intervention in bachelor of medicine and surgery (MBBS) program. Feasibility of the online educational tool about the ActiveHip + mHealth intervention in occupational therapy students. How does learning happen in field epidemiology training programmes? A qualitative study.
×
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