• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medical Education >Teaching Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (EBCAM); Changing behaviours in the face of reticence: A cross-over trial
【24h】

Teaching Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (EBCAM); Changing behaviours in the face of reticence: A cross-over trial

机译：教学循证辅助和替代医学（EBCAM）;面对沉默时改变行为：一项交叉试验

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Background The effectiveness of teaching critical appraisal to students of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) has not been studied. In this study we attempt to determine if a workshop for final year students at a naturopathic college improved their ability to utilize critical appraisal concepts. Methods We assigned 83 Naturopathic Interns to two groups: Group A (n = 47) or Group B (n = 36). We conducted a baseline assessment of all subjects' critical appraisal skills. Group A was assigned to receive a 3 ? hour workshop on Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) and Group B received a workshop on bioethics (control intervention). The groups critical appraisal skills were re-evaluated at this time. We then crossed over the intervention so that Group B received the EBM workshop while Group A received the bioethics workshop. Assessment of critical appraisal skills of the two groups was again performed. Results The students mean scores were similar in Group A (14.8) and Group B (15.0) after Group A had received the intervention and Group B had received the control (p = 0.75). Group scores were not significantly improved at the end of the trial compared to at the beginning of the study (Group A: 15.1 to 16.1) (Group B 15.6 to 15.9). Student's confidence in reading research papers also did not improve throughout the course of the study. Conclusion The final year is a difficult but important time to teach critical appraisal and evidence skills. Single, short intervention programs will likely yield negligible results. A multi-factorial approach may be better suited to implementing EBCAM than single short interventions.
机译：背景技术尚未研究对补充与替代医学（CAM）学生进行批判性评价的有效性。在这项研究中，我们试图确定自然疗法学院的最后一年的研讨会是否提高了他们运用批判性评估概念的能力。方法我们将83名自然疗法实习生分为两组：A组（n = 47）或B组（n = 36）。我们对所有受试者的关键评估技能进行了基线评估。 A组被分配接收3分？小时的循证医学研讨会（EBM）和B组接受了有关生物伦理学的研讨会（控制干预）。此时，对小组的关键评估技能进行了重新评估。然后，我们越过了干预措施，以便B组接受了EBM研讨会，而A组则接受了生物伦理研讨会。再次评估了两组的批判性评估技能。结果在A组接受干预和B组接受对照后，A组（14.8）和B组（15.0）的学生平均得分相似（p = 0.75）。与研究开始时（组A：15.1至16.1）（组B 15.6至15.9）相比，试验结束时组分数没有明显改善。在整个学习过程中，学生对阅读研究论文的信心也没有提高。结论最后一年是传授关键评估和证据技巧的困难但重要的时间。单一的短期干预计划可能会产生微不足道的结果。与单一的短期干预措施相比，多因素方法可能更适合于实施EBCAM。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号