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

IF 1.4 Q3 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Journal of Education and Health Promotion Pub Date : 2025-02-28 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.4103/jehp.jehp_510_24
Beena Varma, Vineetha Karuveettil, Ritin Fernandez, Elizabeth Halcomb, Kaye Rolls, S Vijay Kumar, M S Aravind
{"title":"Effectiveness of case-based learning in comparison to alternate learning methods on learning competencies and student satisfaction among healthcare professional students: A systematic review.","authors":"Beena Varma, Vineetha Karuveettil, Ritin Fernandez, Elizabeth Halcomb, Kaye Rolls, S Vijay Kumar, M S Aravind","doi":"10.4103/jehp.jehp_510_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":15581,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Education and Health Promotion","volume":"14 ","pages":"76"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11940068/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Education and Health Promotion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_510_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

基于案例的学习与替代学习方法对医疗保健专业学生学习能力和学生满意度的影响:一项系统综述。
评估案例学习(CBL)与替代学习方法对医疗保健专业学生学习能力和学生满意度的影响。系统检索PubMed、SCOPUS、CINAHL和Cochrane CENTRAL数据库,从数据库建立到2021年12月31日。灰色文献,谷歌学者,手检索也进行了。使用的关键词是“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”、“医学*”、“凹痕*”、“护理”、“药学*”、“学生”、“本科生”、“研究生”和“见习”。本研究仅考虑将CBL方法与对照组或与保健学生的替代学习方法进行比较的研究。偏倚风险由两位审稿人独立评估。使用RevMan 5.4进行数据分析。在最后的回顾中纳入了22项研究,其中20项研究将CBL与基于讲座的学习(LBL)进行了比较,2项研究将CBL与基于模拟的学习进行了比较。综合数据显示,接受CBL治疗的患者的批判性思维得分显著高于接受LBL治疗的患者(标准化平均差异(SMD): 0.75, 95%可信区间(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%置信区间:-0.19—-0.66)。但知识和理解得分无显著差异(SMD: 0.41;95%CI: 0.20-0.62)和自主学习(SMD: 0.30;95%CI: 0.10-0.49)在接受CBL的患者中与接受LBL的患者相比。基于本综述的结果,CBL已被确定为一种卓越的教学方法,因为它显着提高了批判性思维,解决问题,团队合作和沟通技巧,并提高了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的证据。
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
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
21.40%
发文量
218
审稿时长
34 weeks
×
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