PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Few published articles provide a comprehensive overview of the available evidence on the topic of evaluating competency-based medical education (CBME) curricula. The purpose of this review is therefore to synthesize the available evidence on the evaluation practices for competency-based curricula employed in schools and programs for undergraduate and postgraduate health professionals.
METHODS: This systematized review was conducted following the systematic reviews approach with minor modifications to synthesize the findings of published studies that examined the evaluation of CBME undergraduate and postgraduate programs for health professionals.
RESULTS: Thirty-eight articles met the inclusion criteria and reported evaluation practices in CBME curricula from various countries and regions worldwide, such as Canada, China, Turkey, and West Africa. 57% of the evaluated programs were at the postgraduate level, and 71% were in the field of medicine. The results revealed variation in reporting evaluation practices, with numerous studies failing to clarify evaluations\' objectives, approaches, tools, and standards as well as how evaluations were reported and communicated. It was noted that questionnaires were the primary tool employed for evaluating programs, often combined with interviews or focus groups. Furthermore, the utilized evaluation standards considered the well-known competencies framework, specialized association guidelines, and accreditation criteria.
CONCLUSIONS: This review calls attention to the importance of ensuring that reports of evaluation experiences include certain essential elements of evaluation to better inform theory and practice.
METHODS: This systematized review was conducted following the systematic reviews approach with minor modifications to synthesize the findings of published studies that examined the evaluation of CBME undergraduate and postgraduate programs for health professionals.
RESULTS: Thirty-eight articles met the inclusion criteria and reported evaluation practices in CBME curricula from various countries and regions worldwide, such as Canada, China, Turkey, and West Africa. 57% of the evaluated programs were at the postgraduate level, and 71% were in the field of medicine. The results revealed variation in reporting evaluation practices, with numerous studies failing to clarify evaluations\' objectives, approaches, tools, and standards as well as how evaluations were reported and communicated. It was noted that questionnaires were the primary tool employed for evaluating programs, often combined with interviews or focus groups. Furthermore, the utilized evaluation standards considered the well-known competencies framework, specialized association guidelines, and accreditation criteria.
CONCLUSIONS: This review calls attention to the importance of ensuring that reports of evaluation experiences include certain essential elements of evaluation to better inform theory and practice.
摘要：
背景：很少发表的文章提供了关于评估基于能力的医学教育（CBME）课程的可用证据的全面概述。因此，本次审查的目的是综合现有证据，以评估在学校和本科和研究生卫生专业人员的课程中采用的基于能力的课程。
方法：本系统综述是按照系统综述方法进行的，并进行了较小的修改，以综合已发表的研究结果，这些研究检查了针对卫生专业人员的CBME本科和研究生课程的评估。
结果：38篇文章符合纳入标准，并报告了来自世界各地不同国家和地区的CBME课程的评估实践，比如加拿大,中国,土耳其,和西非。57%的评估项目是研究生水平的，71％在医学领域。结果显示，报告评估做法存在差异，由于许多研究未能阐明评估的目标，方法，工具,和标准，以及如何报告和传达评价。有人指出，问卷是评估项目的主要工具，通常与访谈或焦点小组相结合。此外，使用的评估标准考虑了众所周知的能力框架，专门的协会指南，和认证标准。
结论：本综述提请注意确保评估经验报告包括评估的某些基本要素以更好地为理论和实践提供信息的重要性。
方法：本系统综述是按照系统综述方法进行的，并进行了较小的修改，以综合已发表的研究结果，这些研究检查了针对卫生专业人员的CBME本科和研究生课程的评估。
结果：38篇文章符合纳入标准，并报告了来自世界各地不同国家和地区的CBME课程的评估实践，比如加拿大,中国,土耳其,和西非。57%的评估项目是研究生水平的，71％在医学领域。结果显示，报告评估做法存在差异，由于许多研究未能阐明评估的目标，方法，工具,和标准，以及如何报告和传达评价。有人指出，问卷是评估项目的主要工具，通常与访谈或焦点小组相结合。此外，使用的评估标准考虑了众所周知的能力框架，专门的协会指南，和认证标准。
结论：本综述提请注意确保评估经验报告包括评估的某些基本要素以更好地为理论和实践提供信息的重要性。
