目标:以团队为基础的学习(TBL)在整个卫生行业中越来越受欢迎,包括在跨专业环境中。作者进行了这项系统的审查,以总结已发表的证据,设计,以及在卫生专业(包括医学)学位课程中实施跨专业TBL,以告知跨专业教育(IPE)教育工作者和课程设计师。
方法:2020年6月,作者搜索了PubMedCentral,CINAHL,WebofScience,和ERIC用于描述TBL计划的原始研究文章,其中学生代表来自2010年1月至2020年6月之间发布的多个健康专业学位课程。纳入的文章进行了研究特征的数据提取(例如,原产国,涵盖的主题,类描述符)和TBL的7个核心设计元素:团队组建,准备就绪保证,即时反馈,课堂解决问题的顺序,4个Ss(重大问题,同样的问题,具体选择,和同步报告),激励结构,和同行评审。
结果:包括12篇文章。在TBL的7个核心设计元素的应用和报告中注意到了显著的可变性,其中强调了实施跨专业TBL的挑战。
结论:尽管TBL的结构化格式为IPE提供了合适的教学法,这篇综述确定了与将IPE有效整合到TBL中相关的挑战,包括:由于不同课程的多个学科,学生在团队中的分布不均;TBL教学法的学生经验水平不同;大量学生缺乏所需的资源;不同课程对多个学科的时间表要求;无法提供多个TBL课程;设计适合多个学科的患者病例;在多个学科的课程中调整主题,programs,和大学;同一TBL计划中不同学生的评分不平等;同行评审的机会有限。
Team-based learning (TBL) has gained popularity across the health professions, including in interprofessional contexts. The authors conducted this systematic review to summarize the published evidence regarding the extent, design, and practice of interprofessional TBL within health professions (including medical) degree programs to inform interprofessional education (IPE) educators and curricula designers.
In June 2020, the authors searched PubMed Central, CINAHL, Web of Science, and ERIC for original research articles describing TBL programs with student representation from multiple health professions degree programs that were published between January 2010 and June 2020. Included articles underwent data extraction for study characteristics (e.g., country of origin, topics covered, class descriptors) and the 7 core design elements of TBL: team formation, readiness assurance, immediate feedback, sequencing of in-class problem solving, the 4 Ss (significant problem, same problem, specific choice, and simultaneous reporting), incentive structure, and peer review.
Twelve articles were included. Significant variability was noted in the application and reporting of the 7 core design elements of TBL, which highlighted challenges to the implementation of interprofessional TBL.
Although the structured format of TBL provides a suitable pedagogy for IPE, this review identified challenges associated with the effective integration of IPE into TBL, including: the unequal distribution of students to teams as a result of there being multiple disciplines from different programs; varied levels of student experience with the pedagogy of TBL; a lack of resources required for large groups of students; timetabling requirements for multiple disciplines from different programs; inability to provide more than 1 TBL session; design of patient cases that suit multiple disciplines; alignment of topics within the curricula of multiple disciplines, programs, and universities; inequities in grading for different students within the same TBL program; and limited opportunity for peer review.