Department of Medical Education, College of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
BMC Med Educ. 2024 Jun 3;24(1):612. doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-05609-6.
Few published articles provide a comprehensive overview of the available evidence on the topic of evaluating competency-based medical education (CBME) curricula. The purpose of this review is therefore to synthesize the available evidence on the evaluation practices for competency-based curricula employed in schools and programs for undergraduate and postgraduate health professionals.
This systematized review was conducted following the systematic reviews approach with minor modifications to synthesize the findings of published studies that examined the evaluation of CBME undergraduate and postgraduate programs for health professionals.
Thirty-eight articles met the inclusion criteria and reported evaluation practices in CBME curricula from various countries and regions worldwide, such as Canada, China, Turkey, and West Africa. 57% of the evaluated programs were at the postgraduate level, and 71% were in the field of medicine. The results revealed variation in reporting evaluation practices, with numerous studies failing to clarify evaluations' objectives, approaches, tools, and standards as well as how evaluations were reported and communicated. It was noted that questionnaires were the primary tool employed for evaluating programs, often combined with interviews or focus groups. Furthermore, the utilized evaluation standards considered the well-known competencies framework, specialized association guidelines, and accreditation criteria.
This review calls attention to the importance of ensuring that reports of evaluation experiences include certain essential elements of evaluation to better inform theory and practice.
很少有已发表的文章全面概述了评估基于能力的医学教育（CBME）课程的现有证据。因此，本次综述的目的是综合评估本科和研究生健康专业人员学校和项目中使用的基于能力课程的评估实践的现有证据。
本系统评价采用系统评价方法，对评估健康专业人员基于能力的本科和研究生课程的已发表研究的结果进行综合，略有修改。
38 篇文章符合纳入标准，并报告了来自全球不同国家和地区的 CBME 课程的评估实践，如加拿大、中国、土耳其和西非。57%的评估项目处于研究生水平，71%的项目在医学领域。结果显示，报告评估实践存在差异，许多研究未能明确评估的目标、方法、工具和标准，以及如何报告和交流评估。值得注意的是，问卷是评估项目的主要工具，通常与访谈或焦点小组结合使用。此外，所使用的评估标准考虑了著名的能力框架、专业协会指南和认证标准。
本综述提请注意确保评估经验报告包含评估的某些基本要素的重要性，以便更好地为理论和实践提供信息。
