IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0243897.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Junwei Gao
  • Ling Yang
  • Jinghui Zhao
  • Lian Wang
  • Jiao Zou
  • Chunxiang Wang
  • Xiaotang Fan

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

Suggested Citation

  • Junwei Gao & Ling Yang & Jinghui Zhao & Lian Wang & Jiao Zou & Chunxiang Wang & Xiaotang Fan, 2020. "Comparison of problem-based learning and traditional teaching methods in medical psychology education in China: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-11, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0243897
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243897
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243897
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243897&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0243897?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0243897. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.