Gürsoy M, Wilensky A, Claffey N, Herrera D, Preshaw P M, Sanz M, Schlagenhauf U, Trombelli L, Demirel K
Department of Periodontology, Institute of Dentistry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Hebrew University-Hadassah, Jerusalem, Israel.
Eur J Dent Educ. 2018 Aug;22(3):e488-e499. doi: 10.1111/eje.12330. Epub 2018 Feb 20.
This survey aimed to evaluate whether periodontal education and assessment in undergraduate dental curricula amongst the member countries of the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) follow the competency-based curricular guidelines and recommendations developed by the Association for Dental Education in Europe.
A multiple-choice questionnaire was emailed to 244 dental institutes amongst the 24 EFP member countries between November 2014 and July 2015.
Data were received from 16 (66.7%) EFP member countries. Out of 117 responding dental institutes, 76 (64.95%) were included as valid responders. In most of the institutes (86.3%), a minimum set of competencies in periodontology was taken into account when constructing their dental education programmes. Out of 76 responders, 98.1% included lecture-based, 74.1% case-based and 57.1% problem-based teaching in their periodontal curricula, whilst a minority (15.9%) also used other methods. A similar pattern was also seen in the time allocation for these four educational methods, that is, the highest proportion (51.8%) was dedicated to lecture-based teaching and only a small proportion (5.7%) to other methods. Periodontal competencies and skills were most frequently assessed by clinical grading on clinic, multiple-choice examination (written examination) and oral examination, whereas competency tests and self-assessment were rarely used. Only in 11 (14.5%) cases, access flap procedures were performed by students.
Great diversity in teaching methodology amongst the surveyed schools was demonstrated, and thus, to harmonise undergraduate periodontal education and assessment across Europe, a minimum set of recommendations could be developed and disseminated by the EFP.
本调查旨在评估欧洲牙周病学联合会(EFP)成员国本科牙科课程中的牙周病学教育与评估是否遵循欧洲牙科教育协会制定的基于能力的课程指南和建议。
2014年11月至2015年7月期间,通过电子邮件向EFP的24个成员国的244所牙科院校发送了一份多项选择题问卷。
收到了来自16个(66.7%)EFP成员国的数据。在117所回复的牙科院校中,76所(64.95%)被列为有效回复者。在大多数院校(86.3%)中,在构建牙科教育课程时考虑了一套最低限度的牙周病学能力要求。在76名回复者中,98.1%的牙周病学课程采用了基于讲座的教学,74.1%采用了基于案例的教学,57.1%采用了基于问题的教学,而少数(15.9%)还使用了其他方法。这四种教育方法的时间分配也呈现出类似模式,即最高比例(51.8%)用于基于讲座的教学,而用于其他方法的比例很小(5.7%)。牙周病学能力和技能最常通过临床实习的临床评分、多项选择题考试(笔试)和口试进行评估,而能力测试和自我评估很少使用。只有11例(14.5%)学生进行了翻瓣手术。
调查的学校之间教学方法存在很大差异,因此,为了协调欧洲本科牙周病学教育与评估,EFP可以制定并传播一套最低限度的建议。