Suppr超能文献

一项针对基层医疗医生开展的随机试验,比较基于问题的研讨会与讲授式研讨会在传播哮喘管理循证指南方面的效果。

Randomized trial of problem-based versus didactic seminars for disseminating evidence-based guidelines on asthma management to primary care physicians.

作者信息

White Marc, Michaud Gaëtane, Pachev George, Lirenman David, Kolenc Anna, FitzGerald J Mark

机构信息

Canadian Institute for the Relief of Pain and Disability, Vancouver, British Columbia.

出版信息

J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2004 Fall;24(4):237-43. doi: 10.1002/chp.1340240407.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

This randomized controlled trial (RCT) investigated the effectiveness of and satisfaction with small-group problem-based learning (PBL) versus a didactic lecture approach to guideline dissemination in asthma management controlling for confounders common in comparative educational interventions.

METHODS

Sites were selected as either lecture or PBL using simple randomization. All participants were exposed to similar educational resources to ensure treatment equivalency. Instruments included standardized program/speaker evaluation forms and a validated case-based questionnaire with a visual analogue scale measuring the level of confidence of responses. The latter was presented immediately pre- and post-intervention and 3 months later. The statistician was blinded to intervention groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 52 family physicians agreed to participate, 23 in the PBL sessions (mean 4.6 per group) and 29 in the didactic lecture sessions (mean 7.25). There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to the knowledge gained at each test administration. Participants rated the lecturer or facilitator equally well as having established a positive learning environment. PBL participants rated the perceived educational value of the program higher than did lecture participants (4.36 vs. 3.93; p = .04). Both groups experienced a significant increase in asthma-related knowledge post-intervention. Attrition rates for the 3-month post-test were 14% for PBL participants versus 32% for lecture-based participants.

DISCUSSION

PBL was as effective in knowledge uptake and retention as lecture-based continuing medical education (CME) programs. Further study is warranted to investigate whether the assessment of higher educational value or an increase in response rate to delayed testing is replicable in other RCTs addressing common confounders and if these factors influence future CME participation, changes in physician clinical behavior, or patient health outcomes.

摘要

引言

本随机对照试验(RCT)研究了在控制比较教育干预中常见混杂因素的情况下,小组基于问题的学习(PBL)与讲授式讲座方法在哮喘管理指南传播方面的有效性和满意度。

方法

采用简单随机化将研究地点分为讲座组或PBL组。所有参与者都接触类似的教育资源,以确保治疗等效性。工具包括标准化的课程/演讲者评估表和一份经过验证的基于案例的问卷,该问卷采用视觉模拟量表测量回答的信心水平。后者在干预前、干预后立即以及3个月后进行发放。统计人员对干预组情况不知情。

结果

总体而言,52名家庭医生同意参与,23名参与PBL课程(每组平均4.6名),29名参与讲授式讲座课程(每组平均7.25名)。在每次测试时,两组在获得的知识方面没有显著差异。参与者对讲师或促进者的评价同样良好,认为他们营造了积极的学习环境。PBL参与者对该课程的感知教育价值评分高于讲座参与者(4.36对3.93;p = 0.04)。两组在干预后哮喘相关知识均有显著增加。PBL参与者在3个月后测的失访率为14%,而基于讲座的参与者为32%。

讨论

PBL在知识吸收和保留方面与基于讲座的继续医学教育(CME)项目同样有效。有必要进一步研究,在其他解决常见混杂因素的RCT中,对更高教育价值的评估或延迟测试时反应率的提高是否可重复,以及这些因素是否会影响未来的CME参与、医生临床行为的改变或患者健康结果。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验