Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Seth G. S. Medical College and KEM Hospital, Parel, Mumbai - 400 012, Maharashtra, India.
Indian J Pharmacol. 2012 Sep-Oct;44(5):634-8. doi: 10.4103/0253-7613.100400.
The aim of this study is to assess the impact of case based teaching (CBT) on learning rational prescribing and to compare CBT with the traditional method of teaching (TRD).
Second year Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) students (n = 179) were administered a pre-test and randomly divided into groups to receive CBT (n = 96) and TRD (n = 83). CBT group was further sub-divided into CBT1 and CBT2. Both these groups were taught two topics each by CBT and TRD during tutorials; however, the topics were switched with respect to method of teaching. The post-test comprised of three therapeutic problems of which two were related, and one was not related to the tutorial topics. Marks obtained in the post-test were graded and analysed using Fischer's exact test.
In the post-test, the therapeutic problems on diabetes mellitus and peptic ulcer were attempted by 85.41% students from CBT and 73.49% from TRD group. CBT group obtained more marks for these problems (4.23 ± 0.94; P < 0.001) than the TRD (3.32 ± 0.92) group. Also, more students in the CBT obtained grade 3 (P < 0.001) and fewer obtained grade 1 (P < 0.01), compared to the TRD group. When the grades of the two CBT groups were compared, it was found that fewer students in CBT 2 had obtained grade 1 and those scoring higher grades were comparable between the two groups. For the therapeutic problem on malaria, 7.29% students from CBT and 18.07% from TRD received 0 grade (P < 0.05). More students received ≥ 2 grade in CBT group (P < 0.05).
Use of CBT during tutorials is better than TRD and facilitates learning of rational pharmacotherapy.
本研究旨在评估基于案例的教学(CBT)对合理处方学习的影响,并将 CBT 与传统教学方法(TRD)进行比较。
对 179 名二年级医学学士和外科学士(MBBS)学生进行了预测试,并随机分为接受 CBT(n=96)和 TRD(n=83)的组。CBT 组进一步分为 CBT1 和 CBT2 两个组。这两个组在辅导课上通过 CBT 和 TRD 教授两个主题;然而,在教学方法方面,主题是互换的。后测由三个治疗问题组成,其中两个是相关的,一个与辅导主题无关。使用 Fischer 精确检验对后测中的分数进行分级和分析。
在后测中,85.41%的 CBT 组学生和 73.49%的 TRD 组学生尝试了糖尿病和消化性溃疡的治疗问题。CBT 组在这些问题上获得了更多的分数(4.23±0.94;P<0.001),比 TRD 组(3.32±0.92)更多。此外,与 TRD 组相比,CBT 组获得 3 级成绩的学生更多(P<0.001),获得 1 级成绩的学生更少(P<0.01)。当比较两个 CBT 组的成绩时,发现 CBT2 组中获得 1 级成绩的学生较少,而两组之间获得较高成绩的学生相当。对于疟疾的治疗问题,CBT 组的 7.29%学生和 TRD 组的 18.07%学生获得 0 分(P<0.05)。CBT 组获得≥2 级成绩的学生更多(P<0.05)。
在辅导课上使用 CBT 优于 TRD,有助于学习合理的药物治疗。