Comparison of problem-based learning and traditional teaching methods in medical psychology education in China: A systematic review and meta-analysis

17Citations
Citations of this article
92Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: PBL approach has been widely used in many Chinese universities over the past decade. However, the effects of PBL approach on medical psychology education in China are inconsistent. The purpose of this study was to ascertain whether the PBL approach was superior to the lecture-based teaching method in the context of the medical psychology curriculum in China. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to confirm the effectiveness of PBL in Chinese medical psychology. Corresponding databases were searched for available studies, where data were extracted to calculated Hedges' g and its 95% confidence interval in total and subgroup analyses. Subgroup analyses were also carried out. Results: Nine studies with 551 cases and 496 controls were identified. The total examination scores of students in the PBL approach group were significantly higher compared with students in the traditional lecture-based teaching group under the random effect model (Hedges' g = 1.510, 95%CI 0.792-2.227, p<0.001). Subgroup analyses based on major and school system exhibited similar results. Conclusions: Our study supported the notion that the PBL approach may be applicable to Chinese medical psychology education.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Gao, J., Yang, L., Zhao, J., Wang, L., Zou, J., Wang, C., & Fan, X. (2020). Comparison of problem-based learning and traditional teaching methods in medical psychology education in China: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 15(12 December). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243897

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 15

45%

Lecturer / Post doc 10

30%

Researcher 5

15%

Professor / Associate Prof. 3

9%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 12

50%

Social Sciences 5

21%

Nursing and Health Professions 4

17%

Physics and Astronomy 3

13%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free