PURPOSE: To characterize recent evidence-based medicine (EBM) educational interventions for medical students and suggest future directions for EBM education. METHOD: The authors searched the MEDLINE, Scopus, Educational Resource Information Center, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews databases for English-language articles published between 2006 and 2011 that featured medical students and interventions addressing multiple EBM skills. They extracted data on learner and instructor characteristics, educational settings, teaching methods, and EBM skills covered. RESULTS: The 20 included articles described interventions delivered in 12 countries in classroom (75%), clinic (25%), and/or online (20%) environments. The majority (60%) focused on clinical students, whereas 30% targeted preclinical students and 10% included both. EBM skills addressed included recognizing a knowledge gap (20%), asking a clinical question (90%), searching for information (90%), appraising information (85%), applying information (65%), and evaluating practice change (5%). Physicians were most often identified as instructors (60%); co-teachers included librarians (20%), allied health professionals (10%), and faculty from other disciplines (10%). Many studies (60%) included interventions at multiple points during one year, but none were longitudinal across students' tenures. Teaching methods varied. Intervention efficacy could not be determined. CONCLUSIONS: Settings, learner levels and instructors, teaching methods, and covered skills differed across interventions. Authors writing about EBM interventions should include detailed descriptions and employ more rigorous research methods to allow others to draw conclusions about efficacy. When designing EBM interventions, educators should consider trends in medical education (e.g., online learning, interprofessional education) and in health care (e.g., patient-centered care, electronic health records).
PURPOSE: To characterize recent evidence-based medicine (EBM) educational interventions for medical students and suggest future directions for EBM education. METHOD: The authors searched the MEDLINE, Scopus, Educational Resource Information Center, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews databases for English-language articles published between 2006 and 2011 that featured medical students and interventions addressing multiple EBM skills. They extracted data on learner and instructor characteristics, educational settings, teaching methods, and EBM skills covered. RESULTS: The 20 included articles described interventions delivered in 12 countries in classroom (75%), clinic (25%), and/or online (20%) environments. The majority (60%) focused on clinical students, whereas 30% targeted preclinical students and 10% included both. EBM skills addressed included recognizing a knowledge gap (20%), asking a clinical question (90%), searching for information (90%), appraising information (85%), applying information (65%), and evaluating practice change (5%). Physicians were most often identified as instructors (60%); co-teachers included librarians (20%), allied health professionals (10%), and faculty from other disciplines (10%). Many studies (60%) included interventions at multiple points during one year, but none were longitudinal across students' tenures. Teaching methods varied. Intervention efficacy could not be determined. CONCLUSIONS: Settings, learner levels and instructors, teaching methods, and covered skills differed across interventions. Authors writing about EBM interventions should include detailed descriptions and employ more rigorous research methods to allow others to draw conclusions about efficacy. When designing EBM interventions, educators should consider trends in medical education (e.g., online learning, interprofessional education) and in health care (e.g., patient-centered care, electronic health records).
Authors: Heather Zwickey; Heather Schiffke; Susan Fleishman; Mitch Haas; des Anges Cruser; Ron LeFebvre; Barbara Sullivan; Barry Taylor; Barak Gaster Journal: J Altern Complement Med Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 2.579
Authors: Juliet Aizer; Julie A Schell; Marianna B Frey; Michael D Tiongson; Lisa A Mandl Journal: Rheum Dis Clin North Am Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 2.670