You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original research
Different pedagogies for acquisition of knowledge and skill: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
  1. Hong-Jie Jhou1,2,
  2. Liang-Jun Ou-Yang3,
  3. Ming-Hsun Lin4,
  4. Po-Huang Chen5,6,
  5. Ching-Liang Ho7,
  6. Cho-Hao Lee7
  1. 1 Department of Neurology, Changhua Christian Hospital, Changhua, Taiwan
  2. 2 School of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
  3. 3 Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan
  4. 4 Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan
  5. 5 Department of General Medicine, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan
  6. 6 Department of Internal Medicine, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan
  7. 7 Division of Hematology and Oncology Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan
  1. Correspondence to Dr Cho-Hao Lee, Division of Hematology and Oncology Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan; drleechohao{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Background This network meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of different educational methods for healthcare professionals.

Methods A systematic literature search was conducted to identify relevant randomised controlled trials. The standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI was estimated using network meta-analysis for knowledge acquisition and skill performance, and ranked the effects of different educational methods using the surface under the cumulative ranking area (SCURA) technique.

Results Fifty-five randomised controlled trials including of 4292 participants were identified. Compared with no intervention, the results demonstrated all education methods achieved significant improvements in knowledge acquisition (SMD 1.73–2.66). Only education methods involving high fidelity virtual patient simulation reported significantly better skill performance (SMD 1.25–1.81). High fidelity virtual patient simulation plus self-directed learning was the most effective educational method both in terms of knowledge acquisition (SMD 2.66, 95% CI 1.4 to 4.12, SCURA 0.78) and skill performance (SMD 1.81, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.2, SCURA 0.89).

Conclusions Our study demonstrates all educational methods have positive effects on knowledge acquisition, but education methods involving high fidelity virtual patient simulation are better at improving skill performance than other methods.

  • public health
  • medical education & training

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2021-140076

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • H-JJ and L-JO-Y contributed equally.

    • Contributors H-JJ and L-JO-Y were equal contributors in this study. Study Design: H-JJ, L-JO-Y, and M-HL; Data collection: H-JJ, L-JO-Y, and M-HL; Data analysis: P-HC and C-HL; Writing: H-JJ, L-JO-Y, and M-HL; Methodology: P-HC; Study revision: C-LH and C-HL. All authors read and approved the final version of manuscript.

    • Funding Tri-Service General Hospital/National Defence Medical Centre (No. TSGH-D-110141).

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.