首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology >Do educational interventions improve prescribing by medical students and junior doctors? A systematic review
【2h】

Do educational interventions improve prescribing by medical students and junior doctors? A systematic review

机译:教育干预措施会改善医学生和初级医生的处方吗?系统评价

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Our aim was to review systematically the literature on educational interventions to improve prescribing by medical students and junior doctors. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Educational Resource Information Center, British Education Index, PsycINFO, CINAHL, TIMELIT, Cochrane Trials Database and grey literature were searched. Inclusion criteria were: educational interventions to improve medical student and/or junior doctors' prescribing, in primary or secondary care settings, and published after 1990. After screening 3189 records, we retrieved 11 controlled and four ‘before-and-after’ trials. Ten controlled trials showed improvements in the scores of the intervention group on written scenarios or clinical examination stations, but one study in junior doctors showed no effect on real-life prescription errors. Only one intervention [the World Health Organization (WHO) Good Prescribing Guide, in six randomized trials] had been tested in a variety of international settings and across a range of students at different levels. All four ‘before-and-after’ trials reported significant improvements in written tests or clinical stations. However, most studies tested only small numbers of participants and were affected by a range of methodological flaws. There is only moderate evidence in the literature to inform medical schools about how to prepare medical students for the challenges of prescribing. The WHO Good Prescribing Guide is the only model that has been widely used and shown to improve prescribing. Although it is based on sound principles, there is a need for further development. Robust methods of assessment are required to show clearly whether particular teaching interventions are successful.
机译:我们的目的是系统地审查有关教育干预措施的文献,以改善医学生和初级医生的处方。检索MEDLINE,EMBASE,教育资源信息中心,英国教育指数,PsycINFO,CINAHL,TIMELIT,Cochrane试验数据库和灰色文献。纳入标准为:在初级或二级医疗机构中改善医学生和/或初级医生开处方的教育干预措施,于1990年后发布。在筛选了3189份记录后,我们检索了11项对照试验和4项“前后”试验。十项对照试验显示,在书面情景或临床检查站上,干预组的得分有所提高,但是,在初级医生中的一项研究表明,对现实生活中的处方错误没有影响。仅一项干预措施(《世界卫生组织(WHO)良好处方指南,六项随机试验》)已在各种国际环境下以及在不同水平的一系列学生中进行了测试。所有四项“前后”试验均报告了笔试或临床工作站的显着改善。但是,大多数研究仅测试了少数参与者,并且受到一系列方法论缺陷的影响。文献中只有中等程度的证据可以告知医学院如何为医科学生应对开处方带来的挑战。 《世界卫生组织良好处方指南》是唯一已被广泛使用并显示可以改善处方的模型。尽管它基于合理的原则,但仍需要进一步开发。需要使用稳健的评估方法来清楚显示特定的教学干预是否成功。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号