Cobos Aguilar H, Espinosa Alarcón P, Viniegra Velázquez L
Depto. de Educación Médica de Investigación, Hospital General de Zona No.33 IMSS Monterrey, Nuevo León.
Rev Invest Clin. 1996 Nov-Dec;48(6):431-6.
To compare an educational strategy for promoting the participation versus the traditional teaching of research in medical residents.
We generated a questionnaire validated by experts: to evaluate the critical reading of clinical epidemiology reports. It contains 75 items which explore interpretation judgements or proposals of modification to the reports. A total of 68 first year residents were included in three groups who were exposed for 27-28 hours in periodic sessions to training: group I was exposed to a critical reading strategy with active discussion promoted by a professor. Groups II and III had a traditional training with lectures using the same information in all groups.
There were no group differences in their critical reading previous to receiving the training. Groups I and II increased their global medians basically in the interpretation skills. When the results were adjusted eliminate the chance-expected changes, only group I improved its critical reading.
The strategy promoting student participation appeared to be superior to the traditional strategy in the training of our medical residents.
比较一种促进参与的教育策略与医学住院医师传统研究教学方法。
我们编制了一份经专家验证的问卷：用于评估临床流行病学报告的批判性阅读。该问卷包含75个项目，用于探究对报告的解释判断或修改建议。共有68名一年级住院医师被纳入三组，他们在定期课程中接受27 - 28小时的培训：第一组接受由教授推动的批判性阅读策略及积极讨论。第二组和第三组接受传统培训，所有组使用相同信息进行授课。
在接受培训前，各组在批判性阅读方面无差异。第一组和第二组主要在解释技能方面提高了总体中位数。当对结果进行调整以消除预期的随机变化时，只有第一组提高了其批判性阅读能力。
在我们医学住院医师的培训中，促进学生参与的策略似乎优于传统策略。
