The efficacy of the BOPPPS teaching model in clinical and health education: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Guardado en:
| Udgivet i: | BMC Medical Education vol. 25 (2025), p. 1-14 |
|---|---|
| Hovedforfatter: | |
| Andre forfattere: | , , , , |
| Udgivet: |
Springer Nature B.V.
|
| Fag: | |
| Online adgang: | Citation/Abstract Full Text Full Text - PDF |
| Tags: |
Ingen Tags, Vær først til at tagge denne postø!
|
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nab a2200000uu 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 3227643009 | ||
| 003 | UK-CbPIL | ||
| 022 | |a 1472-6920 | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1186/s12909-025-07274-9 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a 3227643009 | ||
| 045 | 2 | |b d20250101 |b d20251231 | |
| 084 | |a 58506 |2 nlm | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Zhu, Jing | |
| 245 | 1 | |a The efficacy of the BOPPPS teaching model in clinical and health education: a systematic review and meta-analysis | |
| 260 | |b Springer Nature B.V. |c 2025 | ||
| 513 | |a Journal Article | ||
| 520 | 3 | |a 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. | |
| 651 | 4 | |a China | |
| 653 | |a Problem solving | ||
| 653 | |a Physiology | ||
| 653 | |a Medical education | ||
| 653 | |a Collaboration | ||
| 653 | |a Teaching methods | ||
| 653 | |a Student participation | ||
| 653 | |a Statistical analysis | ||
| 653 | |a Active learning | ||
| 653 | |a Health education | ||
| 653 | |a Inclusion | ||
| 653 | |a College students | ||
| 653 | |a Critical thinking | ||
| 653 | |a Nursing | ||
| 653 | |a Ophthalmology | ||
| 653 | |a Pedagogy | ||
| 653 | |a Thoracic surgery | ||
| 653 | |a Bias | ||
| 653 | |a Systematic review | ||
| 653 | |a Health services | ||
| 653 | |a Meta-analysis | ||
| 653 | |a Self study | ||
| 653 | |a Retention (Psychology) | ||
| 653 | |a Prior Learning | ||
| 653 | |a Outcome Measures | ||
| 653 | |a Educational Objectives | ||
| 653 | |a Information Seeking | ||
| 653 | |a Effect Size | ||
| 653 | |a Evidence Based Practice | ||
| 653 | |a Course Content | ||
| 653 | |a Learner Engagement | ||
| 653 | |a Educational Strategies | ||
| 653 | |a Undergraduate Students | ||
| 653 | |a Learning Strategies | ||
| 653 | |a Learning Processes | ||
| 653 | |a Meta Analysis | ||
| 653 | |a Outcomes of Education | ||
| 653 | |a Classroom Communication | ||
| 653 | |a Educational Facilities Improvement | ||
| 700 | 1 | |a Xiao, Heng | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zhou, Rui | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Gan, Xiaochuang | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Gou, Qitao | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Tie, Hongtao | |
| 773 | 0 | |t BMC Medical Education |g vol. 25 (2025), p. 1-14 | |
| 786 | 0 | |d ProQuest |t Healthcare Administration Database | |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |3 Citation/Abstract |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3227643009/abstract/embedded/6A8EOT78XXH2IG52?source=fedsrch |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |3 Full Text |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3227643009/fulltext/embedded/6A8EOT78XXH2IG52?source=fedsrch |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |3 Full Text - PDF |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3227643009/fulltextPDF/embedded/6A8EOT78XXH2IG52?source=fedsrch |