Effects of problem-based learning on delivering medical and nursing education: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-06 DOI:10.1111/wvn.12663
Song Ren, Yi Li, Lei Pu, Yunlin Feng
{"title":"Effects of problem-based learning on delivering medical and nursing education: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Song Ren,&nbsp;Yi Li,&nbsp;Lei Pu,&nbsp;Yunlin Feng","doi":"10.1111/wvn.12663","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is still a lack of high-level evidence on the effects of problem-based learning (PBL) in general medical and nursing education.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>We aimed to summarize current evidence on the effects of PBL in delivering medical and nursing education from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Library, and CINAHL Complete. RCTs that assessed the effects of a PBL module in delivering medical education were eligible. Outcomes included knowledge, performance, and satisfaction. The risk of bias was assessed according to Cochrane handbook guidelines. Standardized mean differences with 95% confidence intervals of each outcome between PBL and control groups were pooled using a random-effects model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In all, 22 RCTs with 1969 participants were included. Both pooled analyses of changes in scores compared with baseline and absolute post-interventional scores favored PBL module in knowledge and performance. The satisfaction degree was also higher in participants receiving PBL methods. Publication bias might exist in satisfaction; however, not in knowledge and performance. Eleven of the 22 studies were assessed as having a high risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Linking evidence to action: </strong>Compared with traditional lecture-based modules, PBL delivered medical education in different medical science specialities more efficiently from both theoretical knowledge and practice skill perspectives. The feedback from participants receiving PBL methods was more positive than that from those receiving traditional methods. However, the high heterogeneity and low quality of the included studies prevented drawing definite conclusions.</p>","PeriodicalId":49355,"journal":{"name":"Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing","volume":" ","pages":"500-512"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12663","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There is still a lack of high-level evidence on the effects of problem-based learning (PBL) in general medical and nursing education.

Aims: We aimed to summarize current evidence on the effects of PBL in delivering medical and nursing education from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods: A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Library, and CINAHL Complete. RCTs that assessed the effects of a PBL module in delivering medical education were eligible. Outcomes included knowledge, performance, and satisfaction. The risk of bias was assessed according to Cochrane handbook guidelines. Standardized mean differences with 95% confidence intervals of each outcome between PBL and control groups were pooled using a random-effects model.

Results: In all, 22 RCTs with 1969 participants were included. Both pooled analyses of changes in scores compared with baseline and absolute post-interventional scores favored PBL module in knowledge and performance. The satisfaction degree was also higher in participants receiving PBL methods. Publication bias might exist in satisfaction; however, not in knowledge and performance. Eleven of the 22 studies were assessed as having a high risk of bias.

Linking evidence to action: Compared with traditional lecture-based modules, PBL delivered medical education in different medical science specialities more efficiently from both theoretical knowledge and practice skill perspectives. The feedback from participants receiving PBL methods was more positive than that from those receiving traditional methods. However, the high heterogeneity and low quality of the included studies prevented drawing definite conclusions.

基于问题的学习对提供医疗和护理教育的影响:随机对照试验的系统综述和荟萃分析。
背景:关于基于问题的学习(PBL)在普通医学和护理教育中的作用,目前还缺乏高水平的证据。目的:我们旨在从随机对照试验(RCTs)中总结PBL在提供医疗和护理教育中的作用的最新证据。方法:在MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane中央图书馆和CINAHL Complete中进行系统检索。评估PBL模块在提供医学教育方面的效果的随机对照试验是合格的。结果包括知识、表现和满意度。根据Cochrane手册指南评估偏倚风险。使用随机效应模型汇总PBL组和对照组之间每个结果的标准化平均差异(置信区间为95%)。结果:共纳入22项随机对照试验,参与者1969人。与基线和绝对介入后评分相比,评分变化的汇总分析在知识和表现上都有利于PBL模块。接受PBL方法的参与者的满意度也更高。出版偏见可能存在于满意度中;然而,不是在知识和表现方面。22项研究中有11项被评估为具有高偏倚风险。将证据与行动联系起来:与传统的以讲座为基础的模块相比,PBL从理论知识和实践技能的角度更有效地提供了不同医学专业的医学教育。接受PBL方法的参与者的反馈比接受传统方法的参与者更积极。然而,纳入研究的高度异质性和低质量阻碍了得出明确的结论。
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
6.10
自引率
11.60%
发文量
72
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The leading nursing society that has brought you the Journal of Nursing Scholarship is pleased to bring you Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing. Now publishing 6 issues per year, this peer-reviewed journal and top information resource from The Honor Society of Nursing, Sigma Theta Tau International, uniquely bridges knowledge and application, taking a global approach in its presentation of research, policy and practice, education and management, and its link to action in real world settings. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing is written especially for: Clinicians Researchers Nurse leaders Managers Administrators Educators Policymakers Worldviews on Evidence­-Based Nursing is a primary source of information for using evidence-based nursing practice to improve patient care by featuring: Knowledge synthesis articles with best practice applications and recommendations for linking evidence to action in real world practice, administra-tive, education and policy settings Original articles and features that present large-scale studies, which challenge and develop the knowledge base about evidence-based practice in nursing and healthcare Special features and columns with information geared to readers’ diverse roles: clinical practice, education, research, policy and administration/leadership Commentaries about current evidence-based practice issues and developments A forum that encourages readers to engage in an ongoing dialogue on critical issues and questions in evidence-based nursing Reviews of the latest publications and resources on evidence-based nursing and healthcare News about professional organizations, conferences and other activities around the world related to evidence-based nursing Links to other global evidence-based nursing resources and organizations.
×
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