卫生专业教育中的电子抽认卡:范围审查。

IF 5.3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Philip D Barrison, Emily A Balczewski, Emily Capellari, Zach Landis-Lewis, Alexandra H Vinson
{"title":"卫生专业教育中的电子抽认卡:范围审查。","authors":"Philip D Barrison, Emily A Balczewski, Emily Capellari, Zach Landis-Lewis, Alexandra H Vinson","doi":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005968","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Electronic flashcards (EFs) are a widely used learning resource in medical education. This scoping review provides a comprehensive overview of the existing empirical research on EFs and a direction for future research on EF interventions. The authors organized the reviewed articles into 4 nonmutually exclusive categories: development, delivery, utilization, and associated outcomes.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>In this scoping review, search queries were composed for 6 databases (PubMed, Embase, Education Resource Information Center, Web of Science, PsychInfo, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature). The database search was conducted on April 12, 2024, for articles published before this date using the following keywords (as well as other keywords): anki, quizlet, firecracker, osmosis, flashcard, spaced repetition, spaced interval training, spaced interval learning, spaced test, and parallel curriculum. Two reviewers screened the studies for eligibility and performed data extraction between August 12, 2024, and September 26, 2024.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-four studies were included in the review. Most articles were published in the last 6 years (2019-2024) (49 [77%]), in the United States (45 [7%]), and in the context of undergraduate medical education (42 [66%]). The studies predominantly focused on the utilization (51 [78%]) and associated outcomes (38 [59%]) of EFs. In contrast, EF development (12 [19%]) and delivery methods (16 [25%]) were less frequently examined.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review of the rapidly increasing body of research on EFs suggests broad use and satisfaction among health professions learners; however, much work remains to be done to systematically understand EF development and delivery. Future research directions may consider more systematic investigations of how decisions made during the development and delivery of EFs affect downstream use and learning outcomes. Addressing these gaps will deepen the understanding of how EFs affect medical education pedagogy and facilitate the informed integration and refinement of these tools within curricula.</p>","PeriodicalId":50929,"journal":{"name":"Academic Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Electronic Flashcards in Health Professions Education: A Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"Philip D Barrison, Emily A Balczewski, Emily Capellari, Zach Landis-Lewis, Alexandra H Vinson\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005968\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Electronic flashcards (EFs) are a widely used learning resource in medical education. This scoping review provides a comprehensive overview of the existing empirical research on EFs and a direction for future research on EF interventions. The authors organized the reviewed articles into 4 nonmutually exclusive categories: development, delivery, utilization, and associated outcomes.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>In this scoping review, search queries were composed for 6 databases (PubMed, Embase, Education Resource Information Center, Web of Science, PsychInfo, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature). The database search was conducted on April 12, 2024, for articles published before this date using the following keywords (as well as other keywords): anki, quizlet, firecracker, osmosis, flashcard, spaced repetition, spaced interval training, spaced interval learning, spaced test, and parallel curriculum. Two reviewers screened the studies for eligibility and performed data extraction between August 12, 2024, and September 26, 2024.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-four studies were included in the review. Most articles were published in the last 6 years (2019-2024) (49 [77%]), in the United States (45 [7%]), and in the context of undergraduate medical education (42 [66%]). The studies predominantly focused on the utilization (51 [78%]) and associated outcomes (38 [59%]) of EFs. In contrast, EF development (12 [19%]) and delivery methods (16 [25%]) were less frequently examined.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review of the rapidly increasing body of research on EFs suggests broad use and satisfaction among health professions learners; however, much work remains to be done to systematically understand EF development and delivery. Future research directions may consider more systematic investigations of how decisions made during the development and delivery of EFs affect downstream use and learning outcomes. Addressing these gaps will deepen the understanding of how EFs affect medical education pedagogy and facilitate the informed integration and refinement of these tools within curricula.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50929,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Academic Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Academic Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005968\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005968","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:电子抽认卡是医学教育中广泛使用的学习资源。本文综述了EF的实证研究现状,并对未来EF干预的研究方向进行了展望。作者将评审的文章组织成4个互不排斥的类别:开发、交付、利用和相关的结果。方法:在此范围综述中,检索查询由6个数据库组成(PubMed, Embase,教育资源信息中心,Web of Science, PsychInfo和护理及相关健康文献累积索引)。数据库检索于2024年4月12日进行,使用以下关键词(以及其他关键词)检索在此日期之前发表的文章:anki, quizlet,鞭炮,osmosis, flashcard,间隔重复,间隔训练,间隔学习,间隔测试和并行课程。两位审稿人在2024年8月12日至2024年9月26日期间筛选了研究的合格性并进行了数据提取。结果:共纳入64项研究。大多数文章发表于最近6年(2019-2024)(49篇[77%]),在美国(45篇[7%]),在本科医学教育背景下(42篇[66%])。这些研究主要集中在EFs的利用(51项[78%])和相关结果(38项[59%])。相比之下,EF发展(12例[19%])和交付方法(16例[25%])较少被检查。结论:对快速增长的EFs研究的回顾表明,在卫生专业学习者中广泛使用和满意;然而,要系统地了解EF的开发和交付,还有很多工作要做。未来的研究方向可能会考虑更系统地研究在ef的开发和交付过程中做出的决策如何影响下游的使用和学习结果。解决这些差距将加深对EFs如何影响医学教育教学方法的理解,并促进在课程中对这些工具进行知情整合和改进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Electronic Flashcards in Health Professions Education: A Scoping Review.

Purpose: Electronic flashcards (EFs) are a widely used learning resource in medical education. This scoping review provides a comprehensive overview of the existing empirical research on EFs and a direction for future research on EF interventions. The authors organized the reviewed articles into 4 nonmutually exclusive categories: development, delivery, utilization, and associated outcomes.

Method: In this scoping review, search queries were composed for 6 databases (PubMed, Embase, Education Resource Information Center, Web of Science, PsychInfo, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature). The database search was conducted on April 12, 2024, for articles published before this date using the following keywords (as well as other keywords): anki, quizlet, firecracker, osmosis, flashcard, spaced repetition, spaced interval training, spaced interval learning, spaced test, and parallel curriculum. Two reviewers screened the studies for eligibility and performed data extraction between August 12, 2024, and September 26, 2024.

Results: Sixty-four studies were included in the review. Most articles were published in the last 6 years (2019-2024) (49 [77%]), in the United States (45 [7%]), and in the context of undergraduate medical education (42 [66%]). The studies predominantly focused on the utilization (51 [78%]) and associated outcomes (38 [59%]) of EFs. In contrast, EF development (12 [19%]) and delivery methods (16 [25%]) were less frequently examined.

Conclusions: This review of the rapidly increasing body of research on EFs suggests broad use and satisfaction among health professions learners; however, much work remains to be done to systematically understand EF development and delivery. Future research directions may consider more systematic investigations of how decisions made during the development and delivery of EFs affect downstream use and learning outcomes. Addressing these gaps will deepen the understanding of how EFs affect medical education pedagogy and facilitate the informed integration and refinement of these tools within curricula.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Academic Medicine
Academic Medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.50%
发文量
982
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Medicine, the official peer-reviewed journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, acts as an international forum for exchanging ideas, information, and strategies to address the significant challenges in academic medicine. The journal covers areas such as research, education, clinical care, community collaboration, and leadership, with a commitment to serving the public interest.
×
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