Suppr超能文献

基于团队的学习与基于讲授的学习在护理中的比较:一项随机对照试验的系统评价。

Team-based learning vs. lecture-based learning in nursing: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

机构信息

Department of Postgraduate Students, West China School of Medicine, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.

Institute of Hospital Management, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.

出版信息

Front Public Health. 2023 Jan 4;10:1044014. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1044014. eCollection 2022.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Our study aims to identify, appraise, and summarize randomized controlled trials (RCT) on the effectiveness of team-based learning (TBL) versus lecture-based learning (LBL) in nursing students.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Ovid, Embase, Cochrane, CBM, VIP, CNKI, and Wan Fang databases from inception to 22nd July 2022 to enroll RCTs that compared TBL versus LBL. The studies reporting the performance of nursing students receiving TBL pedagogy compared to those receiving traditional lecture-based learning (LBL) were to be analyzed. Scores of academic or nursing abilities were considered the primary outcome, and the results of nursing competencies, students' engagement with, behaviors, attitudes toward, experience, satisfaction, or perceptions of TBL were considered the secondary outcome. This systematic review was conducted following the guidelines of the Cochrane Reviewer's Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.

RESULTS

A total of 1,009 participants in 10 RCTs were enrolled in this study. Of the 10 RCTs, eight studies investigated undergraduate students, one involved vocational college students, and one enrolled secondary school students. The most reported outcomes were class engagement survey toward TBL ( = 8); students' ability ( = 5), academic knowledge or performance ( = 4); students' experience ( = 4), satisfaction or perceptions of TBL ( = 4).

CONCLUSION

This review suggested that the TBL was an effective pedagogy in improving academic performance and general ability in nursing students. High-quality trials are needed, and standardized outcomes should be used.

摘要

简介

本研究旨在识别、评价和总结团队学习(TBL)与基于讲座的学习(LBL)在护理学生中的有效性的随机对照试验(RCT)。

方法

我们检索了 PubMed、Ovid、Embase、Cochrane、CBM、VIP、CNKI 和 Wan Fang 数据库,从建库至 2022 年 7 月 22 日,纳入比较 TBL 与 LBL 的 RCT。分析报告接受 TBL 教学法的护理学生表现与接受传统基于讲座的学习(LBL)的护理学生表现的研究。学业或护理能力评分被认为是主要结局,而护理能力、学生参与度、行为、对 TBL 的态度、经验、满意度或认知等方面的结果被认为是次要结局。本系统评价遵循 Cochrane 评论员手册和系统评价和荟萃分析报告的首选条目声明的指南进行。

结果

本研究共纳入 10 项 RCT 的 1009 名参与者。在这 10 项 RCT 中,有 8 项研究调查了本科生,1 项涉及职业院校学生,1 项纳入了中学生。报告最多的结局是对 TBL 的课堂参与度调查(=8);学生能力(=5)、学业知识或表现(=4);学生经验(=4)、对 TBL 的满意度或认知(=4)。

结论

本综述表明,TBL 是提高护理学生学业成绩和综合能力的有效教学法。需要高质量的试验,并应使用标准化结局。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7e51/9846052/b82f5b0f7ff2/fpubh-10-1044014-g0001.jpg

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