Ilic Dragan, Nordin Rusli Bin, Glasziou Paul, Tilson Julie K, Villanueva Elmer
Department of Epidemiology & Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Level 6, The Alfred Centre, 99 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University, Johor Bahru, Malaysia.
BMC Med Educ. 2015 Mar 10;15:39. doi: 10.1186/s12909-015-0321-6.
Few studies have been performed to inform how best to teach evidence-based medicine (EBM) to medical trainees. Current evidence can only conclude that any form of teaching increases EBM competency, but cannot distinguish which form of teaching is most effective at increasing student competency in EBM. This study compared the effectiveness of a blended learning (BL) versus didactic learning (DL) approach of teaching EBM to medical students with respect to competency, self-efficacy, attitudes and behaviour toward EBM.
A mixed methods study consisting of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and qualitative case study was performed with medical students undertaking their first clinical year of training in EBM. Students were randomly assigned to receive EBM teaching via either a BL approach or the incumbent DL approach. Competency in EBM was assessed using the Berlin questionnaire and the 'Assessing Competency in EBM' (ACE) tool. Students' self-efficacy, attitudes and behaviour was also assessed. A series of focus groups was also performed to contextualise the quantitative results.
A total of 147 students completed the RCT, and a further 29 students participated in six focus group discussions. Students who received the BL approach to teaching EBM had significantly higher scores in 5 out of 6 behaviour domains, 3 out of 4 attitude domains and 10 out of 14 self-efficacy domains. Competency in EBM did not differ significantly between students receiving the BL approach versus those receiving the DL approach [Mean Difference (MD)=-0.68, (95% CI-1.71, 0.34), p=0.19]. No significant difference was observed between sites (p=0.89) or by student type (p=0.58). Focus group discussions suggested a strong student preference for teaching using a BL approach, which integrates lectures, online learning and small group activities.
BL is no more effective than DL at increasing medical students' knowledge and skills in EBM, but was significantly more effective at increasing student attitudes toward EBM and self-reported use of EBM in clinical practice. Given the various learning styles preferred by students, a multifaceted approach (incorporating BL) may be best suited when teaching EBM to medical students. Further research on the cost-effectiveness of EBM teaching modalities is required.
很少有研究能为如何向医学实习生最佳地传授循证医学(EBM)提供依据。目前的证据仅能得出结论,即任何形式的教学都能提高循证医学能力,但无法区分哪种教学形式在提高学生循证医学能力方面最有效。本研究比较了混合式学习(BL)与讲授式学习(DL)两种教学循证医学的方法对医学生在能力、自我效能感、对循证医学的态度及行为方面的有效性。
对处于循证医学临床培训第一年的医学生进行了一项混合方法研究,包括随机对照试验(RCT)和定性案例研究。学生被随机分配通过混合式学习方法或现有的讲授式学习方法接受循证医学教学。使用柏林问卷和“循证医学能力评估”(ACE)工具评估循证医学能力。还评估了学生的自我效能感、态度和行为。还进行了一系列焦点小组讨论,以解释定量结果。
共有147名学生完成了随机对照试验,另有29名学生参加了六次焦点小组讨论。接受混合式学习方法进行循证医学教学的学生在6个行为领域中的5个、4个态度领域中的3个以及14个自我效能感领域中的10个领域得分显著更高。接受混合式学习方法的学生与接受讲授式学习方法的学生在循证医学能力方面无显著差异[平均差(MD)=-0.68,(95%置信区间-1.71,0.34),p=0.19]。各地点之间(p=0.89)或学生类型之间(p=0.58)未观察到显著差异。焦点小组讨论表明学生强烈倾向于使用混合式学习方法进行教学,该方法整合了讲座、在线学习和小组活动。
在提高医学生循证医学知识和技能方面,混合式学习并不比讲授式学习更有效,但在提高学生对循证医学的态度以及自我报告的在临床实践中使用循证医学方面显著更有效。鉴于学生偏好的多种学习方式,在向医学生传授循证医学时,多方面方法(包括混合式学习)可能最为合适。需要对循证医学教学模式的成本效益进行进一步研究。