Okładka

The efficacy of the BOPPPS teaching model in clinical and health education: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Zapisane w:
Wydane w:BMC Medical Education vol. 25 (2025), p. 1-14
1. autor: Zhu, Jing
Kolejni autorzy: Xiao, Heng, Zhou, Rui, Gan, Xiaochuang, Gou, Qitao, Tie, Hongtao
Wydane:
Springer Nature B.V.
Hasła przedmiotowe:
China
Problem solving
Physiology
Medical education
Collaboration
Teaching methods
Student participation
Statistical analysis
Active learning
Health education
Inclusion
College students
Critical thinking
Nursing
Ophthalmology
Pedagogy
Thoracic surgery
Bias
Systematic review
Health services
Meta-analysis
Self study
Retention (Psychology)
Prior Learning
Outcome Measures
Educational Objectives
Information Seeking
Effect Size
Evidence Based Practice
Course Content
Learner Engagement
Educational Strategies
Undergraduate Students
Learning Strategies
Learning Processes
Meta Analysis
Outcomes of Education
Classroom Communication
Educational Facilities Improvement
Dostęp online:Citation/Abstract
Full Text
Full Text - PDF
Etykiety: Dodaj etykietę
Nie ma etykietki, Dołącz pierwszą etykiete!
Streszczenie:BackgroundBOPPPS (Bridge-in, Objective, Preassessment, Participatory learning, Post-assessment, Summary) has emerged as a compelling alternative in clinical and health education, particularly in medical and nursing education. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of BOPPPS in clinical and health education, with a primary focus on medical education, while also considering its applications in related disciplines such as nursing and health services management.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using databases of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science, covering studies up to May 15th, 2023. Inclusion criteria were studies involving undergraduate students in clinical and health disciplines (e.g., medicine, nursing, health services management) using BOPPPS, comparing it to traditional teaching methods, and reporting on relevant outcomes. Exclusion criteria were studies not focused on clinical and health education or without a comparison group. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for non-randomized studies and the Jadad scale for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Heterogeneity among the studies was evaluated using the I² statistic and Cochran’s Q test. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger’s test.ResultsA total of 146 publications were initially retrieved, with 16 studies (1198 in the BOPPPS group and 1122 in the control group) included. The pooled result revealed that BOPPPS significantly improved final examination scores (Standardized mean difference: 1.14, 95% CI 0.84–1.43; P < 0.001) compared to traditional teaching. Egger’s test indicated no significant publication bias (p-value = 0.12). Additional benefits included improved student satisfaction (SMD 0.94, 95% CI 0.63–1.26; P < 0.001), classroom interaction (SMD 0.83, 95% CI 0.46–1.21; P < 0.001), and learning initiative (SMD 0.73, 95% CI 0.48–0.98; P < 0.001).ConclusionBOPPPS demonstrates significant potential for enhancing various dimensions of clinical and health education, including academic performance, student engagement, and satisfaction. Policymakers and educational leaders should consider integrating BOPPPS into teacher training and curriculum design to promote active learning and improve learning outcomes. However, further research is necessary to explore its effectiveness in diverse cultural and educational contexts, as well as its potential impact on developing higher-order cognitive skills like critical thinking and problem-solving skills. While these findings are generalizable to similar educational settings, caution is recommended when applying them to different cultural contexts.
ISSN:1472-6920
DOI:10.1186/s12909-025-07274-9
Źródło:Healthcare Administration Database