Boland Jason W, Brown Megan E L, Duenas Angelique, Finn Gabrielle M, Gibbins Jane
Wolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK
Health Professions Education Unit, Hull York Medical School, York, UK.
BMJ Open. 2020 Sep 9;10(9):e036458. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036458.
Palliative care is central to the role of all clinical doctors. There is variability in the amount and type of teaching about palliative care at undergraduate level. Time allocated for such teaching within the undergraduate medical curricula remains scarce. Given this, the effectiveness of palliative care teaching needs to be known.
To evaluate the effectiveness of palliative care teaching for undergraduate medical students.
A systematic review was prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment (mixed methods and Cochrane risk of bias tool) were performed in duplicate.
Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane and grey literature in August 2019. Studies evaluating palliative care teaching interventions with medical students were included.
1446 titles/abstracts and 122 full-text articles were screened. 19 studies were included with 3253 participants. 17 of the varied methods palliative care teaching interventions improved knowledge outcomes. The effect of teaching on clinical practice and patient outcomes was not evaluated in any study.
The majority of palliative care teaching interventions reviewed improved knowledge of medical students. The studies did not show one type of teaching method to be better than others, and thus no 'best way' to provide teaching about palliative care was identified. High quality, comparative research is needed to further understand effectiveness of palliative care teaching on patient care/clinical practice/outcomes in the short-term and longer-term.
CRD42018115257.
姑息治疗是所有临床医生角色的核心。本科阶段关于姑息治疗的教学数量和类型存在差异。本科医学课程中分配给此类教学的时间仍然稀缺。鉴于此，需要了解姑息治疗教学的有效性。
评估本科医学生姑息治疗教学的有效性。
根据系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目指南进行系统评价。筛查、数据提取和质量评估（混合方法和Cochrane偏倚风险工具）均进行了重复操作。
2019年8月的Embase、MEDLINE、PsycINFO、科学网、ClinicalTrials.gov、Cochrane以及灰色文献。纳入评估与医学生进行姑息治疗教学干预的研究。
筛查了1446篇标题/摘要和122篇全文文章。纳入19项研究，共3253名参与者。17种不同方法的姑息治疗教学干预改善了知识成果。任何研究均未评估教学对临床实践和患者结局的影响。
所审查的大多数姑息治疗教学干预提高了医学生的知识水平。研究未表明一种教学方法优于其他方法，因此未确定提供姑息治疗教学的“最佳方式”。需要高质量的比较研究，以进一步了解姑息治疗教学在短期和长期对患者护理/临床实践/结局的有效性。
PROSPERO注册号：CRD42018115257。
