Evidence-Based Medicine: An Overview of Available Evaluation Instruments

R. Aguilar
{"title":"Evidence-Based Medicine: An Overview of Available Evaluation Instruments","authors":"R. Aguilar","doi":"10.53420/apjcs.2019.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paradigm shift to evidence-based medical education was introduced many years back, driven mainly by the voluminous amount of medical literature available to both the medical student and practitioner as well. In essence, it provided a process for critically appraising available information for the purpose of obtaining the “best available evidence.” Presently, as we continue to teach evidence-based medicine (EBM), we find it most useful to evaluate its effectiveness by devising ways to evaluate the performance not only of the students but, of medical practitioners and teachers of EBM as well. Performance evaluation of students involve evaluating the ability to ask answerable questions, perform a systematic search of literature, critically appraise the evidence and, integrate evidence and patient’s values. A step further is to ask whether what we have learned has been translated into better clinical outcomes. Finally, we evaluate the teaching of EBM. This would necessitate much introspection as teachers ask themselves whether they have taught EBM effectively. Several evaluation instruments have already been developed over the years, but studies have shown that better tools still need to be developed.","PeriodicalId":301407,"journal":{"name":"Asia Pacific Journal on Curriculum Studies","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia Pacific Journal on Curriculum Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53420/apjcs.2019.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The paradigm shift to evidence-based medical education was introduced many years back, driven mainly by the voluminous amount of medical literature available to both the medical student and practitioner as well. In essence, it provided a process for critically appraising available information for the purpose of obtaining the “best available evidence.” Presently, as we continue to teach evidence-based medicine (EBM), we find it most useful to evaluate its effectiveness by devising ways to evaluate the performance not only of the students but, of medical practitioners and teachers of EBM as well. Performance evaluation of students involve evaluating the ability to ask answerable questions, perform a systematic search of literature, critically appraise the evidence and, integrate evidence and patient’s values. A step further is to ask whether what we have learned has been translated into better clinical outcomes. Finally, we evaluate the teaching of EBM. This would necessitate much introspection as teachers ask themselves whether they have taught EBM effectively. Several evaluation instruments have already been developed over the years, but studies have shown that better tools still need to be developed.
循证医学:现有评估工具概述
向循证医学教育的范式转变是在许多年前引入的,主要是由于医学生和医生都可以获得大量的医学文献。从本质上讲,它提供了一个批判性地评估现有信息的过程,目的是获得“最佳现有证据”。目前,当我们继续教授循证医学(EBM)时,我们发现通过设计方法来评估其有效性是最有用的,不仅可以评估学生的表现,还可以评估行医者和EBM教师的表现。学生的表现评估包括评估提出可回答问题的能力,进行系统的文献检索,批判性地评估证据以及整合证据和患者价值观的能力。更进一步,我们要问的是,我们所学到的是否已经转化为更好的临床结果。最后,对实证医学教学进行了评价。当老师们问自己是否有效地教授了循证医学时,这将需要大量的自省。多年来已经开发了几种评估工具,但研究表明,仍需要开发更好的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信