Assessing the Effectiveness of Problem-Based Learning of Preventive Medicine Education in China
Open accessAbstract
Problem-based learning (PBL) is defined as a student-centered pedagogy which can provide learners more opportunities for application of knowledge acquired from basic science to the working situations than traditional lecture-based learning (LBL) method. In China, PBL is increasingly popular among preventive medicine educators, and multiple studies have investigated the effectiveness of PBL pedagogy in preventive medicine education. A pooled analysis based on 15 studies was performed to obtain an overall estimate of the effectiveness of PBL on learning outcomes of preventive medicine. Overall, PBL was associated with a significant increase in students' theoretical examination scores (SMD = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.41-0.83) than LBL. For the attitude- and skill-based outcomes, the pooled PBL effects were also significant among learning attitude (OR = 3.62, 95% CI = 2.40-5.16), problem solved skill (OR = 4.80, 95% CI = 2.01-11.46), self-directed learning skill (OR = 5.81, 95% CI = 3.11-10.85), and collaborative skill (OR = 4.21, 95% CI = 0.96-18.45). Sensitivity analysis showed that the exclusion of a single study did not influence the estimation. Our results suggest that PBL of preventive medicine education in China appears to be more effective than LBL in improving knowledge, attitude and skills.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The four systematic reviews and meta-analysis included in this scoping review, all carried out in China, found that PBL was more effective than lecture-based learning in improving knowledge and other skills (clinical, problem-solving, self-learning and collaborative).
“the four systematic reviews and meta-analysis included in this scoping review, all carried out in China, found that PBL was more effective than lecture-based learning in improving knowledge and other skills (clinical, problem-solving, self-learning and collaborative) [40, 51, 53, 58].”
From Effectiveness of problem-based learning methodology in undergraduate medical education: a scoping review (2022) · cites this paper as [40]
All studies have shown that PBL is more effective than lecture-based learning in self-learning skills.
“All studies have shown that PBL is more effective than lecture-based learning in problem-solving and self-learning skills [18, 24, 40, 48, 67, 75, 93, 104, 124].”
From Effectiveness of problem-based learning methodology in undergraduate medical education: a scoping review (2022) · cites this paper as [40]
The four meta-analysis included in this review show results clearly favorable to PBL methodology in terms of knowledge, clinical skills, problem-solving, self-learning and satisfaction.
“the four meta-analysis included in this review, which included a high number of participants, show results that are clearly favorable to the PBL methodology in terms of knowledge, clinical skills, problem-solving, self-learning and satisfaction [40, 51, 53, 58].”
From Effectiveness of problem-based learning methodology in undergraduate medical education: a scoping review (2022) · cites this paper as [40]
All studies have shown that PBL is more effective than lecture-based learning in problem-solving skills.
“All studies have shown that PBL is more effective than lecture-based learning in problem-solving and self-learning skills [18, 24, 40, 48, 67, 75, 93, 104, 124].”
From Effectiveness of problem-based learning methodology in undergraduate medical education: a scoping review (2022) · cites this paper as [40]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 18 · Cited by 49
- Authors
- Ding, X., Zhao, L., Chu, H., Tong, N., Ni, C., Hu, Z., Zhang, Z., & Wang, M.
- Affiliations
- Nanjing Medical University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Zhang, Zhengdong
- Wang, Meilin
- Venue
- Scientific Reports
- Published
- 2014-05-30
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 5126-5126
- ISSN
- 2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4038805
- OpenAlex
- W1978615977
- Cited by
- 49
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 10.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Problem and Project Based Learning
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Biomedical and Engineering Education
- Keywords
- problem-based learning, preventive medicine education, lecture-based learning, student-centered learning, learning outcomes, self-directed learning, teamwork skills, problem-solving skills, learning attitude, China
- MeSH terms
- China, Clinical Competence, Educational Measurement, Preventive Medicine, Problem-Based Learning
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
