Suppr超能文献

医学生在解释临床问题时的生物医学知识。

Biomedical knowledge in explanations of clinical problems by medical students.

作者信息

Patel V L, Groen G J, Scott H M

机构信息

Centre for Medical Education, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

出版信息

Med Educ. 1988 Sep;22(5):398-406. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1988.tb00774.x.

Abstract

This paper was motivated by a controversy concerning the role of basic sciences in medical education. A problem underlying this issue is that it is unknown how basic science is used in clinical reasoning. The experiment was designed to address this issue. Three texts were constructed dealing with basic science knowledge relevant to a clinical problem. Subjects were asked to read and recall the texts. Next, the subjects were required to read and recall the clinical text describing a patient problem. Finally, they were asked to provide a diagnosis and an explanation of the underlying pathophysiology. Subjects were first-, second- and fourth-year medical students. Detailed analysis of subjects' protocols are presented. In general, the results show that when basic science information is given before the clinical problem, the basic science knowledge is used either incorrectly or inconsistently in explaining the clinical problem by all subjects. The authors interpret these results to indicate that the basic sciences and the more practical clinical knowledge form two separate domains with their own individual structures and the clinical information cannot be embedded into the basic science knowledge structure.

摘要

本文的创作源于一场关于基础科学在医学教育中作用的争论。该问题背后的一个难题是,目前尚不清楚基础科学是如何在临床推理中得到运用的。本实验旨在解决这一问题。构建了三篇涉及与临床问题相关的基础科学知识的文本。要求受试者阅读并回忆这些文本。接下来,要求受试者阅读并回忆描述患者问题的临床文本。最后,要求他们给出诊断结果并解释潜在的病理生理学原理。受试者为大一、大二和大四的医学生。文中呈现了对受试者方案的详细分析。总体而言,结果表明,当在临床问题之前给出基础科学信息时,所有受试者在解释临床问题时对基础科学知识的运用要么不正确,要么不一致。作者对这些结果的解读是,基础科学和更具实践性的临床知识构成了两个各自具有独特结构的独立领域,且临床信息无法嵌入基础科学知识结构之中。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验