| Title |
Meta-analysis on the effectiveness of team-based learning on medical education in China
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12909-018-1179-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Minjian Chen, Chunhui Ni, Yanhui Hu, Meilin Wang, Lu Liu, Xiaoming Ji, Haiyan Chu, Wei Wu, Chuncheng Lu, Shouyu Wang, Shoulin Wang, Liping Zhao, Zhong Li, Huijuan Zhu, Jianming Wang, Yankai Xia, Xinru Wang |
| Abstract |
Team-based learning (TBL) has been adopted as a new medical pedagogical approach in China. However, there are no studies or reviews summarizing the effectiveness of TBL on medical education. This study aims to obtain an overall estimation of the effectiveness of TBL on outcomes of theoretical teaching of medical education in China. We retrieved the studies from inception through December, 2015. Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Chinese Wanfang Database, Chinese Scientific Journal Database, PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Database were searched. The quality of included studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Standardized mean difference (SMD) was applied for the estimation of the pooled effects. Heterogeneity assumption was detected by I2 statistics, and was further explored by meta-regression analysis. A total of 13 articles including 1545 participants eventually entered into the meta-analysis. The quality scores of these studies ranged from 6 to 10. Altogether, TBL significantly increased students' theoretical examination scores when compared with lecture-based learning (LBL) (SMD = 2.46, 95% CI: 1.53-3.40). Additionally, TBL significantly increased students' learning attitude (SMD = 3.23, 95% CI: 2.27-4.20), and learning skill (SMD = 2.70, 95% CI: 1.33-4.07). The meta-regression results showed that randomization, education classification and gender diversity were the factors that caused heterogeneity. TBL in theoretical teaching of medical education seems to be more effective than LBL in improving the knowledge, attitude and skill of students in China, providing evidence for the implement of TBL in medical education in China. The medical schools should implement TBL with the consideration on the practical teaching situations such as students' education level. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 50% |
| India | 1 | 17% |
| Australia | 1 | 17% |
| Spain | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 148 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 19 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 11% |
| Professor | 12 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 11 | 7% |
| Researcher | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 35 | 24% |
| Unknown | 46 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 46 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Arts and Humanities | 4 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 26 | 18% |
| Unknown | 52 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 April 2018.
All research outputs
#13,317,748
of 23,463,424 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,585
of 3,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,028
of 330,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#44
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,463,424 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,472 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,344 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.