Medical students' evaluation of digital problem-based learning: a mixed-methods systematic review.

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Camilla Rams Rathleff, John Vergel, Thomas Ryberg, Jette Kolding Kristensen, Patrik Kjaersdam Telléus
{"title":"Medical students' evaluation of digital problem-based learning: a mixed-methods systematic review.","authors":"Camilla Rams Rathleff, John Vergel, Thomas Ryberg, Jette Kolding Kristensen, Patrik Kjaersdam Telléus","doi":"10.1186/s12909-025-07823-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Digital Problem-Based Learning (DPBL) is becoming more frequently used to facilitate the development of knowledge and skills in medical education, yet student satisfaction and engagement with DPBL remain insufficiently understood.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This mixed-methods systematic review aimed to examine how medical students perceive and experience DPBL. We searched four databases (Feb 5-Jun 30, 2024) following JBI and PRISMA guidelines, yielding 3459 abstracts and 56 included studies. Studies published at any time and in any language were considered. Two researchers independently conducted screening, selection, quality assessment and analysis. A segregated approach was used to synthesize the data. This method included a thematic synthesis of the qualitative data and a narrative review/meta-analysis for quantitative data where appropriate. The findings of both syntheses were then integrated and validated by stakeholders.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mixed-methods synthesis demonstrated that both quantitative and qualitative findings complemented each other, offering a comprehensive understanding of medical students' perceptions of DPBL. Overall, students had a positive evaluation of DPBL, despite some mixed perceptions. Quantitatively, the satisfaction rate was 78.51% (95% CI: 78.07% - 78.96%) across 20 studies. Qualitatively, students' social perceptions varied, with some feeling isolated and others valued the focused learning environment. DPBL tasks provided ownership, autonomy, and flexibility. Technology was useful, engaging, and motivational, though feedback was occasionally lacking. Visual and auditory features were appreciated, but tactile realism was limited. The study findings were validated by 10 medical students.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings suggest that DPBL design still struggles to reconcile technological innovation with the social principles of traditional PBL. A hybrid model may offer a practical way to bridge this gap.</p>","PeriodicalId":51234,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Education","volume":"25 1","pages":"1401"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07823-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Digital Problem-Based Learning (DPBL) is becoming more frequently used to facilitate the development of knowledge and skills in medical education, yet student satisfaction and engagement with DPBL remain insufficiently understood.

Methods: This mixed-methods systematic review aimed to examine how medical students perceive and experience DPBL. We searched four databases (Feb 5-Jun 30, 2024) following JBI and PRISMA guidelines, yielding 3459 abstracts and 56 included studies. Studies published at any time and in any language were considered. Two researchers independently conducted screening, selection, quality assessment and analysis. A segregated approach was used to synthesize the data. This method included a thematic synthesis of the qualitative data and a narrative review/meta-analysis for quantitative data where appropriate. The findings of both syntheses were then integrated and validated by stakeholders.

Results: The mixed-methods synthesis demonstrated that both quantitative and qualitative findings complemented each other, offering a comprehensive understanding of medical students' perceptions of DPBL. Overall, students had a positive evaluation of DPBL, despite some mixed perceptions. Quantitatively, the satisfaction rate was 78.51% (95% CI: 78.07% - 78.96%) across 20 studies. Qualitatively, students' social perceptions varied, with some feeling isolated and others valued the focused learning environment. DPBL tasks provided ownership, autonomy, and flexibility. Technology was useful, engaging, and motivational, though feedback was occasionally lacking. Visual and auditory features were appreciated, but tactile realism was limited. The study findings were validated by 10 medical students.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that DPBL design still struggles to reconcile technological innovation with the social principles of traditional PBL. A hybrid model may offer a practical way to bridge this gap.

医学生对数字化问题学习的评价:一项混合方法的系统回顾。
背景:数字化基于问题的学习(DPBL)越来越频繁地用于促进医学教育中知识和技能的发展,但学生对DPBL的满意度和参与度仍然不够了解。方法:本研究旨在探讨医学生如何感知和体验DPBL。我们按照JBI和PRISMA指南检索了4个数据库(2024年2月5日至6月30日),得到3459篇摘要和56篇纳入研究。在任何时间以任何语言发表的研究都被考虑在内。两名研究人员独立进行筛选、选择、质量评估和分析。采用分离方法合成数据。该方法包括对定性数据进行专题综合,并在适当情况下对定量数据进行叙述性审查/元分析。然后,利益相关者对这两种综合的结果进行了整合和验证。结果:混合方法综合表明,定量和定性结果相互补充,全面了解医学生对DPBL的看法。总体而言,学生对DPBL有积极的评价,尽管有一些不同的看法。在数量上,20项研究的满意度为78.51% (95% CI: 78.07% - 78.96%)。从质量上讲,学生的社会观念各不相同,一些人感到孤立,另一些人则重视集中的学习环境。DPBL任务提供了所有权、自主性和灵活性。技术是有用的、吸引人的、激励人的,尽管有时缺乏反馈。视觉和听觉特征被欣赏,但触觉现实主义是有限的。研究结果得到了10名医学生的验证。结论:我们的研究结果表明,DPBL设计仍在努力调和技术创新与传统PBL的社会原则。混合模式可能为弥合这一差距提供一种实用的方法。
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
BMC Medical Education
BMC Medical Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
795
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Education is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the training of healthcare professionals, including undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing education. The journal has a special focus on curriculum development, evaluations of performance, assessment of training needs and evidence-based medicine.
×
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