Landry F J, Pangaro L, Kroenke K, Lucey C, Herbers J
Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, Washington 98431-5000.
J Gen Intern Med. 1994 Aug;9(8):436-9. doi: 10.1007/BF02599058.
To determine whether an interactive seminar could affect medical student knowledge of research design, basic critical appraisal skills, and attitudes toward and clinical use of the medical literature.
Controlled, nonrandomized clinical trial.
Third-year clinical clerks (n = 146) during their core medicine clerkship.
Two 90-minute interactive seminars.
Pre- and postquestionnaires were used to assess knowledge and attitudes regarding the use of the medical literature among 65 study and 81 control students. Blinded review of write-ups assessed actual use of the medical literature. Overall, 80% of the students subscribed to one or more journals and reported reading three or more journal articles per month. After the intervention, the study students were more likely than the control students to consider: 1) study design important in article selection and 2) use of medical literature critical to patient care decisions. Knowledge scores were significantly improved in the study group (p = 0.0001). The intervention yielded no increase in the actual use of medical literature in patient write-ups over that encouraged by usual clerkship goals. 51% of the study and 48% of the control students cited literature at baseline, and 53% of all the students did so after the intervention. Of these citations, 50% were for journal articles and the remainder were for textbooks. The students infrequently mentioned the quality of the cited literature.
An interactive seminar designed to introduce medical students to critical appraisal improved student knowledge and attitudes but did not increase the actual use of literature in patient write-ups.
确定一场互动研讨会是否会影响医学生对研究设计的知识、基本的批判性评价技能,以及对医学文献的态度和临床应用。
对照、非随机临床试验。
三年级临床实习医生(n = 146),处于核心内科实习阶段。
两场90分钟的互动研讨会。
使用课前和课后问卷评估65名研究组学生和81名对照组学生对医学文献使用的知识和态度。对书面报告进行盲法评审以评估医学文献的实际使用情况。总体而言,80%的学生订阅了一种或多种期刊,并报告每月阅读三篇或更多期刊文章。干预后,研究组学生比对照组学生更有可能认为:1)研究设计对文章选择很重要;2)医学文献的使用对患者护理决策至关重要。研究组的知识得分显著提高(p = 0.0001)。与常规实习目标所鼓励的相比,干预并未使患者书面报告中医学文献的实际使用增加。51%的研究组学生和48%的对照组学生在基线时引用了文献,干预后所有学生中有53%这样做了。在这些引文中,50%是期刊文章,其余是教科书。学生很少提及所引用文献的质量。
一场旨在向医学生介绍批判性评价的互动研讨会提高了学生的知识和态度,但并未增加患者书面报告中文献的实际使用。