| 引用本文：陈仕敏,刘淼,宋扬,王盛书,王建华,贾王平,韩珂,刘少华,李雪航,何耀.不同类别研究生对《临床流行病学》的认知、学习习惯及学习效果的调查研究[J].中华医学教育探索杂志,2024,23(3):364-370 |
| 不同类别研究生对《临床流行病学》的认知、学习习惯及学习效果的调查研究 |
| Study on the cognition, learning habit and learning effect of Clinical Epidemiology among different types of postgraduates |
| DOI：10.3760/cma.j.cn116021-20220512-01669 |
| 中文关键词: 临床流行病学 课程改革 人才培养 医学教育 |
| 英文关键词:Clinical epidemiology Curriculum reform Postgraduate cultivation Medical education |
|
 |
| 基金项目:总参谋部院校保障课题（14BJZ41）；国家自然科学基金（82173590、82173589） |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 270 |
| 全文下载次数: 91 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 调查中国人民解放军总医院研究生对临床流行病学课程的认知和学习习惯情况，评价其学习效果并分析其可能的影响因素，为改进教学方式、提高学习效果提供相关数据。方法 采用横断面研究设计方法，以中国人民解放军总医院2020级全体研究生为研究对象，采用自填问卷方式收集调查资料。分析不同类别研究生对课程认知情况、学习习惯的差异，探讨影响学习效果的相关因素。连续变量组间差异比较采用t检验或Mann-WhitneyU检验，分类变量组间差异比较采用卡方检验或McNemar检验。结果 共纳入652名研究生进行分析，硕士研究生409人（62.7％），博士研究生243人（37.3％）。博士研究生听说过临床流行病学（χ2=19.99，P<0.001）、之前学过临床流行病学（χ2=9.20，P=0.002）、对本课程感兴趣（χ2=11.41，P=0.001）、认为本课程重要（χ2=10.71，P=0.001）、课前预习（χ2=11.21，P=0.001）、课后复习（χ2=3.29，P=0.001）及课堂积极讨论（χ2=11.64，P=0.001）的比例高于硕士研究生，差异有统计学意义。授课前全体研究生测验题总分平均为（5.50±1.62），授课后总分平均为（7.47±1.90），差异有统计学意义（t=-23.49，P<0.001）。统招研究生授课后成绩提高程度高于在职研究生，硕士群体中差异有统计学意义（t=4.41，P<0.001），博士群体中差异无统计学意义（t=0.94，P=0.351）。结论 不同类别研究生对临床流行病学知识点掌握程度在授课后均得到提升。但仍需针对不同类别研究生学习基础及短板的差异，改进相应的教学模式及过程，包括采用不同的教学方式和规范学习习惯等，从而提升研究生的课程学习效果。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To investigate the cognition and learning habits of different types of postgraduates and evaluate learning effect and its potential risk factors on clinical epidemiology in a medical college, so as to provide relevant data for improving the teaching method and learning effect of clinical research methods for postgraduates.Methods A cross-sectional study design was conducted to enroll all the postgraduates of Grade 2020 in a military medical school. A self-filled questionnaire was adopted to collect data. The discrepancy of cognition and learning habits between different types of postgraduates was evaluated by univariate analysis. Discussion was conducted to clarify the potential risk factors of learning effect. t tests or Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted to test the differences between groups for continuous variables. Chi-squared tests or McNemar tests were applied to evaluate the difference between groups for categorical variables.Results A total of 652 postgraduate students were enrolled for analysis, including 409 master students (62.7) and 243 doctoral students (37.3). The proportion of doctoral students who have heard of clinical epidemiology (χ2=19.99, P<0.001), who have learned clinical epidemiology (χ2=9.20, P=0.002), who are interested in (χ2=11.41, P=0.001) and think the course is important (χ2=10.71, P=0.001), who previewed before class(χ2=11.21, P=0.001), reviewed after class (χ2=3.29, P=0.001) and actively discuss in class (χ2=11.64, P=0.001) is significantly higher than that of master students, the difference was statistically significance. The average score of all the postgraduates was (5.50±1.62) points before teaching and (7.47±1.90) points after teaching, the difference was statistically significant (t=-23.49, P<0.001). After teaching, the grades of full-time students improved more than that of part-time graduate students, there was statistical significance in the master group (t=4.41, P<0.001), while not in the doctor group (t=0.94, P=0.351).Conclusions The mastery of key points on clinical epidemiology have significantly improved after teaching among the postgraduates of different types. Different teaching methods and processes should be adopted to the variety of postgraduates according to their knowledge foundations and shortcomings. Besides, standardizing their learning habits are of certain significance to improve the learning effect. |
|
查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
|
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
