BMC Medical Education最新文献

Introduction: In recent decades, numerous studies have explored Problem-based Learning (PBL) or Case-based Learning (CBL) alone, but few have investigated their combination. Fundamental nursing is a core course for nursing undergraduates, and anaphylactic shock (a life-threatening clinical emergency) is a key teaching content. Traditional lecture-based learning (LBL) lacks interaction and fails to enhance critical thinking, highlighting the need for teaching methods.

Methods: Nursing undergraduates from a medical college were randomly divided into two groups (n=50 each): the traditional group (LBL) and the PBL-CBL group (combined method). The intervention focused on anaphylactic shock in fundamental nursing (September 2022-June 2024). Data were collected via post-class tests (theoretical, practical, case analysis) and anonymous questionnaires (California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory, satisfaction, time consumption). Statistical analysis used SPSS 18.0.

Results: The PBL-CBL group had significantly higher total test scores (87.33±4.21 vs. 73.32±3.66, P<0.001) and better performance in all test sections. Questionnaire results showed higher critical thinking scores (truth-seeking, analytical skills, etc.), course satisfaction, and teacher-student interaction in the PBL-CBL group, though it consumed more learning time (P<0.05).

Discussion: The combined PBL-CBL method outperforms traditional LBL in deepening knowledge, enhancing clinical analysis ability, and improving critical thinking. It is a promising approach for fundamental nursing teaching, though it requires more student preparation time.

Background: Cancer care requires collaboration across specialties, making interprofessional education essential. The INTERACT-EUROPE 100 project promotes interprofessional cancer care by implementing the Inter-Specialty Cancer Training Program (ISCTP) on a larger scale across Europe. This study aimed to co-adapt a comprehensive evaluation framework to assess the impact of the ISCTP, with the broader goal of informing evaluation practices in other educational programs in cancer care. A modified three-round Delphi study was conducted involving cancer care experts and patient representatives. In the first round, 61 participants responded to three open-ended questions in written form to gather their perspectives on key aspects to consider when evaluating the ISCTP. Thematic analysis of these responses yielded twelve overarching statements that were subsequently prioritized by 46 participants in the second round using a ranking task. The third and final round consisted of two cross-national online focus group discussions (n = 15), which allowed for the contextualization of these findings. ISCTP evaluation priorities were defined at various levels: assessing program satisfaction through feedback on content relevance, interactivity (e.g., collaborative exercises), and participant engagement through attendance and active participation. Additionally, emphasis was placed on evaluating both declarative knowledge acquisition and the application of procedural knowledge, as well as competence assessment using culturally sensitive rubrics. Overall, findings underscore the need to measure participant performance through satisfaction, behavioral changes, and patient-centered outcomes to successfully implement existing evaluation frameworks. Having incorporated interest-holder perspectives, these findings provide a robust and patient-centered foundation for a comprehensive ISCTP evaluation.