Bradley Peter, Oterholt Christina, Herrin Jeph, Nordheim Lena, Bjørndal Arild
Norwegian Medicines Agency, Oslo, Norway.
Med Educ. 2005 Oct;39(10):1027-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02268.x.
To compare 2 educational programmes for teaching evidence-based medicine (EBM).
Prospective randomised controlled trial accompanied by a qualitative evaluation.
University of Oslo, Norway, 2002-03.
A total of 175 students entered the study. All tenth semester medical students from 3 semesters were eligible for inclusion if they completed baseline assessment and consent forms and either attended teaching on the first day of the semester or gave reasons for their absence on the first day in advance. Interventions One intervention was based on computer-assisted, self-directed learning (self-directed intervention), whilst the other was organised as workshops based on social learning theory (directed intervention). Both educational interventions consisted of 5 half-day sessions.
The primary outcomes were knowledge about EBM and skills in critical appraisal. A secondary outcome measured attitudes to EBM. Outcomes were compared on an intention-to-treat basis using a stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test.
There were no differences in outcomes for the 2 study groups in terms of EBM knowledge (mean deviation 0.0 [95% confidence interval - 1.0, 1.0], P = 0.8), critical appraisal skills (MD 0.1 [95% CI - 0.9, 1.1], P = 0.5), or attitudes to EBM (MD - 0.3 [95% CI - 1.4, 0.8], P = 0.5). Follow-up rates were 96%, 97% and 63%, respectively.
This trial and its accompanying qualitative evaluation suggest that self-directed, computer-assisted learning may be an alternative format for teaching EBM. However, further research is needed to confirm this and investigate alternative educational models.
比较两种循证医学(EBM)教学方案。
前瞻性随机对照试验并伴有定性评估。
挪威奥斯陆大学,2002 - 2003年。
共有175名学生参与研究。来自3个学期的所有十年级医学生若完成基线评估和同意书,且在学期第一天参加教学或提前说明缺勤原因,均符合纳入条件。干预措施一种干预基于计算机辅助的自主学习(自主干预),另一种则按照基于社会学习理论的研讨会形式组织(指导干预)。两种教育干预均由5个半天课程组成。
主要结果是关于循证医学的知识和批判性评价技能。次要结果是对循证医学的态度。使用分层Wilcoxon秩和检验在意向性分析基础上比较结果。
两个研究组在循证医学知识(平均偏差0.0 [95%置信区间 - 1.0, 1.0],P = 0.8)、批判性评价技能(MD 0.1 [95% CI - 0.9, 1.1],P = 0.5)或对循证医学的态度(MD - 0.3 [95% CI - 1.4, 0.8],P = 0.5)方面结果无差异。随访率分别为96%、97%和63%。
本试验及其伴随的定性评估表明,自主的计算机辅助学习可能是循证医学教学的一种替代形式。然而,需要进一步研究来证实这一点并探究其他教育模式。