Suppr超能文献

与其他学习方法相比,基于案例的学习对医护专业学生学习能力和学生满意度的有效性:一项系统评价。

Effectiveness of case-based learning in comparison to alternate learning methods on learning competencies and student satisfaction among healthcare professional students: A systematic review.

作者信息

Varma Beena, Karuveettil Vineetha, Fernandez Ritin, Halcomb Elizabeth, Rolls Kaye, Kumar S Vijay, Aravind M S

机构信息

Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Amrita School of Dentistry, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala, India.

Department of Public Health Dentistry, Amrita School of Dentistry, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala, India.

出版信息

J Educ Health Promot. 2025 Feb 28;14:76. doi: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_510_24. eCollection 2025.

Abstract

To evaluate the effectiveness of case-based learning (CBL) versus alternate learning methods on learning competencies and student satisfaction among healthcare students. A systematic search of the PubMed, SCOPUS, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases was conducted from database inception to December 31, 2021. The grey literature, Google Scholar, and hand searching were also conducted. The keywords used were "case-based learning," "case learning," "traditional learning," "problem-based learning," "simulation-based learning," "learning competenc*," "competenc*," "student satisfaction," "satisfaction," "medic*," "dent*," "nursing" "pharmac*," "students," "undergraduate," "postgraduate," and "clerkship." Only studies comparing CBL methods with a control group or with an alternate learning method conducted on healthcare students were considered. The risk of bias was assessed independently by two reviewers. Data analysis was undertaken using RevMan 5.4. Twenty-two studies were included in the final review, of which 20 studies compared CBL with lecture-based learning (LBL) and two compared CBL with simulation-based learning. Pooled data demonstrated that critical thinking scores were significantly higher among those receiving CBL than those receiving LBL (standardized mean difference (SMD): 0.75, 95% confidence interval (95%CI): 0.21-1.29). Similarly, significantly greater scores for teamwork and communication were identified in the CBL group than in the LBL groups (SMD: 0.24; 95%CI: -0.19-0.66). However, no significant difference in knowledge and comprehension scores (SMD: 0.41; 95%CI: 0.20-0.62) and self-directed learning (SMD: 0.30; 95%CI: 0.10-0.49) was identified among those who received CBL compared to those who received LBL. Based on the results of this review, CBL has been identified as a superior teaching method as it significantly improves critical thinking, problem-solving, teamwork, and communication skills and enhances clinical skills development and student satisfaction. However, more rigorous RCTs are needed to underpin the available evidence.

摘要

评估基于案例的学习(CBL)与其他学习方法对医学生学习能力和学生满意度的有效性。从数据库建立到2021年12月31日,对PubMed、SCOPUS、CINAHL和Cochrane CENTRAL数据库进行了系统检索。还进行了灰色文献、谷歌学术搜索和手工检索。使用的关键词有“基于案例的学习”“案例学习”“传统学习”“基于问题的学习”“基于模拟的学习”“学习能力*”“能力*”“学生满意度”“满意度”“医学*”“牙科*”“护理”“药学*”“学生”“本科”“研究生”和“实习”。仅纳入了比较CBL方法与对照组或与在医学生中进行的其他学习方法的研究。由两名评审员独立评估偏倚风险。使用RevMan 5.4进行数据分析。最终综述纳入了22项研究,其中20项研究比较了CBL与基于讲座的学习(LBL),两项研究比较了CBL与基于模拟的学习。汇总数据表明,接受CBL的学生的批判性思维得分显著高于接受LBL的学生(标准化均值差(SMD):0.75,95%置信区间(95%CI):0.21 - 1.29)。同样,CBL组的团队合作和沟通得分显著高于LBL组(SMD:0.24;95%CI: - 0.19 - 0.66)。然而,与接受LBL的学生相比,接受CBL的学生在知识和理解得分(SMD:0.41;95%CI:0.20 - 0.62)和自主学习(SMD:0.30;95%CI:0.10 - 0.49)方面没有显著差异。基于本综述的结果,CBL已被确定为一种优越的教学方法,因为它能显著提高批判性思维、解决问题、团队合作和沟通技能,并促进临床技能发展和学生满意度。然而,需要更严格的随机对照试验来支持现有证据。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4ffd/11940068/3c7776a4711c/JEHP-14-76-g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验