摘要
目的:调查和比较分析不同专业、不同年级医学研究生临床思维能力水平的差异,探究影响其临床思维能力的因素。方法随机选取青岛大学医学院护理学专业(54名)和临床医学专业(126名)一、二、三年级的医学研究生共计180名作为研究对象。使用自制的医学生临床思维能力评估量表进行临床思维能力水平的测试。量表包括一级条目3个(批判性思维能力、系统思维能力、循证思维能力),二级条目24个。采用t检验、方差分析、多元线性回归分析进行数据的统计学分析。结果护理学专业和临床医学专业学生临床思维能力得分比较,差异无统计学意义(t=-0.80,P〉0.05)。不同年级医学研究生临床思维能力得分比较,差异有统计学意义(F=53.43,P〈0.05)。多元线性回归分析表明,实习时间的长短、阅读专业文献的数量、进入专业课题研究的时间与医学研究生临床思维水平密切相关,校正R2=0.45,差异有统计学意义(P〈0.05)。结论医学研究生临床思维能力得分普遍较高;随着年级的增长,医学研究生的临床思维水平不断提高;应加强对研究生临床思维能力的培养。
Objective To investigate and compare the clinical thinking ability of medical graduate students of different majors and different grades to explore the influencing factors of clinical thinking ability. Methods 180 graduate students in Medical College of Qingdao University were sur-veyed,including 54 nursing and 126 clinical medicine graduates of different grades. We used a self-designed scale of clinical thinking ability which included three main dimensions (critical thinking abil-ity, systematic thinking ability, evidence-based thinking ability) and twenty-four level 2 items. Ap-plying t test, ANOVA, multiple linear regression analysis for data statistical analysis. Results There's no significant difference comparing the scores of nursing graduates to the scores of clinical medical graduates(t=-0.80, P〉0.05). However, there is significant difference in the different grade graduates (F=53.43, P〈0.05). The multiple linear regression analysis shows that the practice time, reading professional literature quantity, and starting research earlier or later,are signif-icantly related to the clinical thinking ability(P〈0.05). Conclusion The clinical thinking level of medical graduate students is generally high, and the higher grade, the higher level of clinical think-ing ability. We must strength-en the training of clinical thinking ability of medical graduates.
出处
《中华医学教育探索杂志》
2014年第7期671-675,共5页
Chinese Journal of Medical Education Research
基金
山东省科技厅项目(2012YD18033)
关键词
医学研究生
临床思维能力
比较研究
影响因素
Medical graduate students
Clinical thinking ability
Comparison research
Influencing factors