两种强化本科生循证医学教育的策略：一项随机对照试验。

Two strategies to intensify evidence-based medicine education of undergraduate students: a randomised controlled trial.

机构信息

Department of Research and Education, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan.

出版信息

Ann Acad Med Singap. 2012 Jan;41(1):4-11.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Undergraduate evidence-based practice (EBP) is usually taught through standalone courses and workshops away from clinical practice. This study compared the effects of 2 clinically integrated educational strategies on final year medical students.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Final year medical students rotating to the general medicine service for a 2-week internship were randomly assigned to participate in a weekly EBP-structured case conference focusing on students' primary care patients (Group A, n = 47), or to receive a weekly didactic lecture about EBP (Group B, n = 47). The teaching effects of these 2 interventions were evaluated by a validated instrument for assessment of EBP related knowledge (EBP-K), attitude (EBP-A), personal application (EBP-P), and anticipated future use (EBP-F) on the first and last days of rotation.

RESULTS

All scores improved significantly after the 2-week EBM-teaching for both groups. When compared to Group B, students in Group A had significantly higher post-intervention scores of EBP-K (21.2 ± 3.5 vs 19.0 ± 4.6; ie. 57.8 ± 72.9% vs 29.1 ± 39.1%; P <0.01) and EBP-P (18.7 ± 4.3 vs 15.3 ± 3.9; ie. 28.5 ± 25.5 % vs 14.1 ± 18.7 %; P <0.001). In contrast, the scores of EBP-A and EBP-F were similar between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Structured case conference, when compared to the didactic lectures, significantly improved EBP-K and EBP-P for final year medical students.

摘要

简介

本科阶段的循证实践（EBP）通常通过独立的课程和远离临床实践的工作坊来教授。本研究比较了两种临床整合教育策略对医学专业最后一年学生的影响。

材料和方法

在为期两周的内科实习中轮转至普通内科的医学专业最后一年学生被随机分配参加每周一次的 EBP 结构化病例研讨会，重点关注学生的初级保健患者（A 组，n = 47），或参加每周一次的 EBP 讲座（B 组，n = 47）。通过评估循证实践相关知识（EBP-K）、态度（EBP-A）、个人应用（EBP-P）和预期未来使用（EBP-F）的有效工具评估这两种干预措施的教学效果，在轮转的第一天和最后一天进行评估。

结果

两组学生在接受为期两周的 EBM 教学后，所有评分均显著提高。与 B 组相比，A 组学生在干预后的 EBP-K（21.2 ± 3.5 对 19.0 ± 4.6；即 57.8 ± 72.9%对 29.1 ± 39.1%；P <0.01）和 EBP-P（18.7 ± 4.3 对 15.3 ± 3.9；即 28.5 ± 25.5%对 14.1 ± 18.7%；P <0.001）方面的评分明显更高。相比之下，两组学生的 EBP-A 和 EBP-F 评分相似。