↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Use of a problem-based learning teaching model for undergraduate medical and nursing education: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Medical Education and Practice, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
272 Mendeley
Title
Use of a problem-based learning teaching model for undergraduate medical and nursing education: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Advances in Medical Education and Practice, October 2017
DOI 10.2147/amep.s143694
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mehdi Sayyah, Kiarash Shirbandi, Amal Saki-Malehi, Fakher Rahim

Abstract

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the problem-based learning (PBL) method as an alternative to conventional educational methods in Iranian undergraduate medical courses. We systematically searched international datasets banks, including PubMed, Scopus, and Embase, and internal resources of banks, including MagirIran, IranMedex, IranDoc, and Scientific Information Database (SID), using appropriate search terms, such as "PBL", "problem-based learning", "based on problems", "active learning", and" learner centered", to identify PBL studies, and these were combined with other key terms such as "medical", "undergraduate", "Iranian", "Islamic Republic of Iran", "I.R. of Iran", and "Iran". The search included the period from 1980 to 2016 with no language limits. Overall, a total of 1,057 relevant studies were initially found, of which 21 studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Of the 21 studies, 12 (57.14%) had a high methodological quality. Considering the pooled effect size data, there was a significant difference in the scores (standardized mean difference [SMD]=0.80, 95% CI [0.52, 1.08], P<0.000) in favor of PBL, compared with the lecture-based method. Subgroup analysis revealed that using PBL alone is more favorable compared to using a mixed model with other learning methods such as lecture-based learning (LBL). The results of this systematic review showed that using PBL may have a positive effect on the academic achievement of undergraduate medical courses. The results suggest that teachers and medical education decision makers give more attention on using this method for effective and proper training.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 272 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 272 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 12%
Student > Bachelor 24 9%
Lecturer 17 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 12 4%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 4%
Other 63 23%
Unknown 111 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 13%
Social Sciences 19 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 2%
Other 36 13%
Unknown 126 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 11 October 2017.
All research outputs
#16,305,401
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,612
of 332,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.5. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 332,288 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them