基于模拟教学与传统医学教学的随机对照试验：临床医学专业学生的一项试点研究
A randomized controlled trial of simulation-based teaching versus traditional instruction in medicine: a pilot study among clinical medical students.
作者信息
Gordon James A, Shaffer David W, Raemer Daniel B, Pawlowski John, Hurford William E, Cooper Jeffrey B
机构信息
Center for Medical Simulation, Boston, MA, USA.
出版信息
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2006 Feb;11(1):33-9. doi: 10.1007/s10459-004-7346-7.
OBJECTIVE
To compare simulator-based teaching with traditional instruction among clinical medical students.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trial with written pre-post testing. Third-year medical students (n = 38) received either a myocardial infarction (MI) simulation followed by a reactive airways disease (RAD) lecture, or a RAD simulation followed by an MI lecture.
RESULTS
Mean pre-post test score improvement was seen across teaching modalities (overall change score [simulation] = 8.8 [95% CI = 2.3-15.3], pretest [62.7]; change score [lecture] = 11.3 [95% CI = 5.7-16.9], pretest [59.7]). However, no significant differences were observed between simulator-based teaching and lecture, in either subject domain.
CONCLUSIONS
After a single instructional session for clinical medical students, differences between simulator-based teaching and lecture could not be established by the written test protocols used in this pilot. Future studies should consider the effects of iterative exposure assessed by clinical performance measures across multiple centers.
目的
比较临床医学专业学生中基于模拟器的教学与传统教学方法。
方法
采用书面前后测试的随机对照试验。三年级医学生（n = 38）接受了心肌梗死（MI）模拟，随后是反应性气道疾病（RAD）讲座，或者接受了RAD模拟，随后是MI讲座。
结果
各种教学方式的前后测试平均分数均有提高（[模拟]总体变化分数 = 8.8 [95%置信区间 = 2.3 - 15.3]，前测[62.7]；[讲座]变化分数 = 11.3 [95%置信区间 = 5.7 - 16.9]，前测[59.7]）。然而，在任何一个学科领域，基于模拟器的教学和讲座之间均未观察到显著差异。
结论
在对临床医学专业学生进行单次教学后，本试点研究中使用的书面测试方案未能确定基于模拟器的教学与讲座之间的差异。未来的研究应考虑通过多中心的临床绩效指标评估反复接触的效果。
Zotero 插件