Tomesko Jennifer, Touger-Decker Riva, Dreker Margaret, Zelig Rena, Parrott James Scott
Department of Nutritional Sciences, School of Health Professions, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark, NJ, USA.
George F. Smith Library of the Health Sciences, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark, NJ, USA.
J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2017 Jul 14;4:2382120517720428. doi: 10.1177/2382120517720428. eCollection 2017 Jan-Dec.
To explore knowledge and skill acquisition outcomes related to learning physical examination (PE) through computer-assisted instruction (CAI) compared with a face-to-face (F2F) approach.
A systematic literature review and meta-analysis published between January 2001 and December 2016 was conducted. Databases searched included Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL, ERIC, Ebsco, Scopus, and Web of Science. Studies were synthesized by study design, intervention, and outcomes. Statistical analyses included DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model.
In total, 7 studies were included in the review, and 5 in the meta-analysis. There were no statistically significant differences for knowledge (mean difference [MD] = 5.39, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.05 to 12.84) or skill acquisition (MD = 0.35, 95% CI: -5.30 to 6.01).
The evidence does not suggest a strong consistent preference for either CAI or F2F instruction to teach students/trainees PE. Further research is needed to identify conditions which examine knowledge and skill acquisition outcomes that favor one mode of instruction over the other.
探讨与通过计算机辅助教学（CAI）学习体格检查（PE）相比，采用面对面（F2F）教学方法时的知识和技能获取结果。
对2001年1月至2016年12月发表的文献进行系统综述和荟萃分析。检索的数据库包括Medline、Cochrane、CINAHL、ERIC、Ebsco、Scopus和科学引文索引。研究按研究设计、干预措施和结果进行综合分析。统计分析采用DerSimonian-Laird随机效应模型。
综述共纳入7项研究，荟萃分析纳入5项研究。在知识（平均差[MD]=5.39，95%置信区间[CI]：-2.05至12.84）或技能获取方面（MD=0.35，95%CI：-5.30至6.01），均无统计学显著差异。
现有证据并不表明在教授学生/学员体格检查时，对计算机辅助教学或面对面教学有强烈一致的偏好。需要进一步研究以确定能够检验哪种教学模式在知识和技能获取结果方面更具优势的条件。
