Dataset Information

Cognition of and Demand for Education and Teaching in Medical Statistics in China: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although a substantial number of studies focus on the teaching and application of medical statistics in China, few studies comprehensively evaluate the recognition of and demand for medical statistics. In addition, the results of these various studies differ and are insufficiently comprehensive and systematic.

Objectives

This investigation aimed to evaluate the general cognition of and demand for medical statistics by undergraduates, graduates, and medical staff in China.

Methods

We performed a comprehensive database search related to the cognition of and demand for medical statistics from January 2007 to July 2014 and conducted a meta-analysis of non-controlled studies with sub-group analysis for undergraduates, graduates, and medical staff.

Results

There are substantial differences with respect to the cognition of theory in medical statistics among undergraduates (73.5%), graduates (60.7%), and medical staff (39.6%). The demand for theory in medical statistics is high among graduates (94.6%), undergraduates (86.1%), and medical staff (88.3%). Regarding specific statistical methods, the cognition of basic statistical methods is higher than of advanced statistical methods. The demand for certain advanced statistical methods, including (but not limited to) multiple analysis of variance (ANOVA), multiple linear regression, and logistic regression, is higher than that for basic statistical methods. The use rates of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software and statistical analysis software (SAS) are only 55% and 15%, respectively.

Conclusion

The overall statistical competence of undergraduates, graduates, and medical staff is insufficient, and their ability to practically apply their statistical knowledge is limited, which constitutes an unsatisfactory state of affairs for medical statistics education. Because the demand for skills in this area is increasing, the need to reform medical statistics education in China has become urgent.

SUBMITTER: Wu Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4459963 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PhenomenonResearch literacy remains important for equipping clinicians with the analytical skills to tackle an ever-evolving medical landscape and maintain an evidence-based approach when treating patients. While the role of research in medical education has been justified and established, the nuances involving modes of instruction and relevant outcomes for students have yet to be analyzed. Institutions acknowledge an increasing need to dedicate time and resources towards educating medical undergraduates on research but have individually implemented different pedagogies over differing lengths of time.ApproachWhile individual studies have evaluated the efficacy of these curricula, the evaluations of educational methods and curriculum design have not been reviewed systematically. This study thereby aims to perform a systematic review of studies incorporating research into the undergraduate medical curriculum, to provide insights on various pedagogies utilized to educate medical students on research.FindingsStudies predominantly described two major components of research curricula-(1) imparting basic research skills and the (2) longitudinal application of research skills. Studies were assessed according to the 4-level Kirkpatrick model for evaluation. Programs that spanned minimally an academic year had the greatest proportion of level 3 outcomes (50%). One study observed a level 4 outcome by assessing the post-intervention effects on participants. Studies primarily highlighted a shortage of time (53%), resulting in inadequate coverage of content.InsightsThis study highlighted the value in long-term programs that support students in acquiring research skills, by providing appropriate mentors, resources, and guidance to facilitate their learning. The Dreyfus model of skill acquisition underscored the importance of tailoring educational interventions to allow students with varying experience to develop their skills. There is still room for further investigation of multiple factors such as duration of intervention, student voluntariness, and participants' prior research experience. Nevertheless, it stands that mentoring is a crucial aspect of curricula that has allowed studies to achieve level 3 Kirkpatrick outcomes and engender enduring changes in students.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-020-01183-w.

Project description:BackgroundThe importance of teaching the skills and practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM) for medical professionals has steadily grown in recent years. Alongside this growth is a need to evaluate the effectiveness of EBM curriculum as assessed by competency in the five 'A's': asking, acquiring, appraising, applying and assessing (impact and performance). EBM educators in medical education will benefit from a compendium of existing assessment tools for assessing EBM competencies in their settings. The purpose of this review is to provide a systematic review and taxonomy of validated tools that evaluate EBM teaching in medical education.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Educational Resources Information Centre (ERIC), Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) databases and references of retrieved articles published between January 2005 and March 2019. We have presented the identified tools along with their psychometric properties including validity, reliability and relevance to the five domains of EBM practice and dimensions of EBM learning. We also assessed the quality of the tools to identify high quality tools as those supported by established interrater reliability (if applicable), objective (non-self-reported) outcome measures and achieved ≥ 3 types of established validity evidence. We have reported our study in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines.ResultsWe identified 1719 potentially relevant articles of which 63 full text articles were assessed for eligibility against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Twelve articles each with a unique and newly identified tool were included in the final analysis. Of the twelve tools, all of them assessed the third step of EBM practice (appraise) and four assessed just that one step. None of the twelve tools assessed the last step of EBM practice (assess). Of the seven domains of EBM learning, ten tools assessed knowledge gain, nine assessed skills and-one assessed attitude. None addressed reaction to EBM teaching, self-efficacy, behaviours or patient benefit. Of the twelve tools identified, six were high quality. We have also provided a taxonomy of tools using the CREATE framework, for EBM teachers in medical education.ConclusionsSix tools of reasonable validity are available for evaluating most steps of EBM and some domains of EBM learning. Further development and validation of tools that evaluate all the steps in EBM and all educational outcome domains are needed.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42018116203.

Project description:BACKGROUND:According to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education residents "should participate in scholarly activity." The development of a sustainable, successful resident scholarship program is a difficult task faced by graduate medical education leadership. METHODS:A medical librarian conducted a systematic literature search for English language articles published on scholarly activities initiatives in Graduate Medical Education (GME) between January 2003 and March 31 2017. Inclusion criteria included implementing a graduate medical education research curriculum or initiative designed to enhance intern, resident, or fellow scholarly activities using a control or comparison group. We defined major outcomes as increases in publications or presentations. Random effects meta-analysis was used to compare the rate of publications before and after implementation of curriculum or initiative. RESULTS:We identified 32 relevant articles. Twenty-nine (91%) reported on resident publications, with 35% (10/29) reporting statistically significant increases. Fifteen articles (47%) reported on regional, national, or international presentations, with only 13% (2/15) reporting a statistically significant increase in productivity. Nineteen studies were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis; for these studies, the post-initiative publication rate was estimated to be 2.6 times the pre-intervention rate (95% CI: 1.6 to 4.3; p?<?0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Our systematic review identified 32 articles describing curricula and initiatives used by GME programs to increase scholarly activity. The three most frequently reported initiatives were mentors (88%), curriculum (59%), and protected time (59%). Although no specific strategy was identified as paramount to improved productivity, meta-analysis revealed that the publication rate was significantly higher following the implementation of an initiative. Thus, we conclude that a culture of emphasis on resident scholarship is the most important step. We call for well-designed research studies with control or comparison groups and a power analysis focused on identifying best practices for future scholarly activities curricula and initiatives.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Medical schools in low- and middle-income countries are facing a shortage of staff, limited infrastructure, and restricted access to fast and reliable internet. Offline digital education may be an alternative solution for these issues, allowing medical students to learn at their own time and pace, without the need for a network connection. OBJECTIVE:The primary objective of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of offline digital education compared with traditional learning or a different form of offline digital education such as CD-ROM or PowerPoint presentations in improving knowledge, skills, attitudes, and satisfaction of medical students. The secondary objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of offline digital education, changes in its accessibility or availability, and its unintended/adverse effects on students. METHODS:We carried out a systematic review of the literature by following the Cochrane methodology. We searched seven major electronic databases from January 1990 to August 2017 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cluster RCTs. Two authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations criteria. RESULTS:We included 36 studies with 3325 medical students, of which 33 were RCTs and three were cluster RCTs. The interventions consisted of software programs, CD-ROMs, PowerPoint presentations, computer-based videos, and other computer-based interventions. The pooled estimate of 19 studies (1717 participants) showed no significant difference between offline digital education and traditional learning groups in terms of students' postintervention knowledge scores (standardized mean difference=0.11, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.32; small effect size; low-quality evidence). Meta-analysis of four studies found that, compared with traditional learning, offline digital education improved medical students' postintervention skills (standardized mean difference=1.05, 95% CI 0.15-1.95; large effect size; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain about the effects of offline digital education on students' attitudes and satisfaction due to missing or incomplete outcome data. Only four studies estimated the costs of offline digital education, and none reported changes in accessibility or availability of such education or in the adverse effects. The risk of bias was predominantly high in more than half of the included studies. The overall quality of the evidence was low (for knowledge, skills, attitudes, and satisfaction) due to the study limitations and inconsistency across the studies. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings suggest that offline digital education is as effective as traditional learning in terms of medical students' knowledge and may be more effective than traditional learning in terms of medical students' skills. However, there is a need to further investigate students' attitudes and satisfaction with offline digital education as well as its cost-effectiveness, changes in its accessibility or availability, and any resulting unintended/adverse effects.

Project description:BackgroundBlended learning, which combines face-to-face learning and e-learning, has grown rapidly to be commonly used in education. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of this learning approach has not been completely quantitatively synthesized and evaluated using knowledge outcomes in health education.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of blended learning compared to that of traditional learning in health education.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of blended learning in health education in MEDLINE from January 1990 to July 2019. We independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and compared overall blended learning versus traditional learning, offline blended learning versus traditional learning, online blended learning versus traditional learning, digital blended learning versus traditional learning, computer-aided instruction blended learning versus traditional learning, and virtual patient blended learning versus traditional learning. All pooled analyses were based on random-effect models, and the I2 statistic was used to quantify heterogeneity across studies.ResultsA total of 56 studies (N=9943 participants) assessing several types of learning support in blended learning met our inclusion criteria; 3 studies investigated offline support, 7 studies investigated digital support, 34 studies investigated online support, 8 studies investigated computer-assisted instruction support, and 5 studies used virtual patient support for blended learning. The pooled analysis comparing all blended learning to traditional learning showed significantly better knowledge outcomes for blended learning (standardized mean difference 1.07, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.28, I2=94.3%). Similar results were observed for online (standardized mean difference 0.73, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.86, I2=94.9%), computer-assisted instruction (standardized mean difference 1.13, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.79, I2=78.0%), and virtual patient (standardized mean difference 0.62, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.06, I2=78.4%) learning support, but results for offline learning support (standardized mean difference 0.08, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.79, I2=87.9%) and digital learning support (standardized mean difference 0.04, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.52, I2=93.4%) were not significant.ConclusionsFrom this review, blended learning demonstrated consistently better effects on knowledge outcomes when compared with traditional learning in health education. Further studies are needed to confirm these results and to explore the utility of different design variants of blended learning.