Effectiveness of teaching and evaluation methods of clinical competencies for pharmacy: A systematic review

IF 1.3 Q3 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Carla Francisca dos Santos Cruz , Dyego Carlos Souza Anacleto de Araújo , Carla Tatiane de Jesus Santos , Thelma Onozato , Fernando de Castro Araújo-Neto , Divaldo Pereira de Lyra Jr
{"title":"Effectiveness of teaching and evaluation methods of clinical competencies for pharmacy: A systematic review","authors":"Carla Francisca dos Santos Cruz ,&nbsp;Dyego Carlos Souza Anacleto de Araújo ,&nbsp;Carla Tatiane de Jesus Santos ,&nbsp;Thelma Onozato ,&nbsp;Fernando de Castro Araújo-Neto ,&nbsp;Divaldo Pereira de Lyra Jr","doi":"10.1016/j.cptl.2024.102182","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Background. This review aimed to analyze the effectiveness of the teaching and assessment methodologies used to develop fundamental clinical skills in pharmacist who are training in patient care. Methods. SCOPUS, EMBASE, ERIC, and PubMed were searched for original studies that featured randomized controlled trials as the study design published until March 2024. The search and extraction process followed PRISMA Guidelines. Results. The database search resulted in 2954 articles, of which 14 met the inclusion criteria. Four studies developed and tested interactive web-based software as the teaching methodologies. Eight studies applied simulation to their teaching and/or evaluation strategies. Two articles used high fidelity simulation, and the remaining studies used standardized patients associated with other teaching and evaluation techniques. The simulation methodologies were more effective than the conventional ones in three studies. In the other studies, the interventions were as effective or better than the control, albeit there no meaningful differences between the methods. In the studies that focused on the assessment methods, immediate feedback was preferred by students over delayed feedback. Additionally, the tested assessment tool, General Level Framework, proposed a pragmatic assessment from which the individual's training needs were identified. Conclusion. Few studies involved the objective quantification of learning beyond pre- and post-intervention knowledge tests. Proper assessment in pharmaceutical education requires expansion beyond the administration of student satisfaction, self-efficacy research tools, and knowledge assessments, and should encompass an examination of clinical performance and critical thinking.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47501,"journal":{"name":"Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning","volume":"16 12","pages":"Article 102182"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877129724002144","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background. This review aimed to analyze the effectiveness of the teaching and assessment methodologies used to develop fundamental clinical skills in pharmacist who are training in patient care. Methods. SCOPUS, EMBASE, ERIC, and PubMed were searched for original studies that featured randomized controlled trials as the study design published until March 2024. The search and extraction process followed PRISMA Guidelines. Results. The database search resulted in 2954 articles, of which 14 met the inclusion criteria. Four studies developed and tested interactive web-based software as the teaching methodologies. Eight studies applied simulation to their teaching and/or evaluation strategies. Two articles used high fidelity simulation, and the remaining studies used standardized patients associated with other teaching and evaluation techniques. The simulation methodologies were more effective than the conventional ones in three studies. In the other studies, the interventions were as effective or better than the control, albeit there no meaningful differences between the methods. In the studies that focused on the assessment methods, immediate feedback was preferred by students over delayed feedback. Additionally, the tested assessment tool, General Level Framework, proposed a pragmatic assessment from which the individual's training needs were identified. Conclusion. Few studies involved the objective quantification of learning beyond pre- and post-intervention knowledge tests. Proper assessment in pharmaceutical education requires expansion beyond the administration of student satisfaction, self-efficacy research tools, and knowledge assessments, and should encompass an examination of clinical performance and critical thinking.

药学临床能力教学与评估方法的有效性:系统综述。
背景本综述旨在分析用于培养接受患者护理培训的药剂师基本临床技能的教学和评估方法的有效性:方法:检索 SCOPUS、EMBASE、ERIC 和 PubMed 上截至 2024 年 3 月发表的以随机对照试验为研究设计的原始研究。搜索和提取过程遵循 PRISMA 指南:数据库搜索结果为 2954 篇文章,其中 14 篇符合纳入标准。四项研究开发并测试了基于网络的互动软件作为教学方法。八项研究在教学和/或评估策略中应用了模拟。两篇文章使用了高仿真模拟,其余研究则使用了与其他教学和评估技术相关的标准化病人。在三项研究中,模拟方法比传统方法更有效。在其他研究中,尽管不同方法之间没有明显差异,但干预效果与对照组相同或更好。在以评估方法为重点的研究中,学生更喜欢即时反馈,而不是延迟反馈。此外,经过测试的评估工具 "一般水平框架 "提出了一种实用的评估方法,并从中确定了个人的培训需求:除了干预前和干预后的知识测试之外,很少有研究对学习进行客观量化。药学教育中的正确评估需要扩展到学生满意度管理、自我效能研究工具和知识评估之外,还应包括临床表现和批判性思维的检查。
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
Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning
Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
16.70%
发文量
192
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信