Ren Song, Li Yi, Pu Lei, Feng Yunlin
Department of Nephrology, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2023 Oct;20(5):500-512. doi: 10.1111/wvn.12663. Epub 2023 Jun 6.
There is still a lack of high-level evidence on the effects of problem-based learning (PBL) in general medical and nursing education.
We aimed to summarize current evidence on the effects of PBL in delivering medical and nursing education from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Library, and CINAHL Complete. RCTs that assessed the effects of a PBL module in delivering medical education were eligible. Outcomes included knowledge, performance, and satisfaction. The risk of bias was assessed according to Cochrane handbook guidelines. Standardized mean differences with 95% confidence intervals of each outcome between PBL and control groups were pooled using a random-effects model.
In all, 22 RCTs with 1969 participants were included. Both pooled analyses of changes in scores compared with baseline and absolute post-interventional scores favored PBL module in knowledge and performance. The satisfaction degree was also higher in participants receiving PBL methods. Publication bias might exist in satisfaction; however, not in knowledge and performance. Eleven of the 22 studies were assessed as having a high risk of bias.
Compared with traditional lecture-based modules, PBL delivered medical education in different medical science specialities more efficiently from both theoretical knowledge and practice skill perspectives. The feedback from participants receiving PBL methods was more positive than that from those receiving traditional methods. However, the high heterogeneity and low quality of the included studies prevented drawing definite conclusions.
关于基于问题的学习(PBL)在普通医学和护理教育中的效果,目前仍缺乏高级别证据。
我们旨在总结随机对照试验(RCT)中关于PBL在医学和护理教育中效果的现有证据。
在MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane中央图书馆和CINAHL Complete中进行了系统检索。评估PBL模块在医学教育中效果的RCT符合纳入标准。结局包括知识、表现和满意度。根据Cochrane手册指南评估偏倚风险。使用随机效应模型汇总PBL组和对照组各结局的标准化均数差及其95%置信区间。
共纳入22项RCT,涉及1969名参与者。与基线相比的分数变化以及干预后的绝对分数的汇总分析均表明,PBL模块在知识和表现方面更具优势。接受PBL方法的参与者的满意度也更高。满意度方面可能存在发表偏倚;然而,知识和表现方面不存在。22项研究中有11项被评估为存在高偏倚风险。
与传统的基于讲座的模块相比,从理论知识和实践技能角度来看,PBL在不同医学专业中更有效地提供医学教育。接受PBL方法的参与者的反馈比接受传统方法的参与者更积极。然而,纳入研究的高异质性和低质量妨碍了得出明确结论。