3D打印结合PBL与CBL教学法在主动脉瓣狭窄教学中的效果

Effect of 3D Printing Combined with PBL and CBL Teaching Method in Teaching Aortic Valve Stenosis

目的研究3D打印结合PBL与CBL的教学在主动脉瓣狭窄教学中应用效果,以优化规培医师教学流程,提高教学质量。方法选取2022年1月1日-2022年7月31日在某医院心内科接受住院医师规范化培训的住院医师共计144名,随机均分为对照组(接受PBL和CBL结合教学)和观察组(在对照组基础上结合3D打印模型教学)。以在科内第1周、第2周、第3周阶段测试结果作为评价指标,测试结束后采用调查问卷方式了解两组教学满意度。结果观察组在客观选择题得分(91.35±4.54vs74.99±9.17)、问答题得分(90.42±4.18vs77.57±5.57)、病例分析题得分(90.74±3.99vs77.94±5.17)3个测试项目得分及总分(272.50±11.91 vs 230.60±17.69)明显高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(t=38.409,12.818,4.663,13.837,均P<0.05)。教学后第1周、第2周、第3周,观察组客观选择题得分(93.58±5.54 vs 81.85±9.23,91.56±5.05 vs 75.65±10.41,88.90±5.25 vs 67.47±10.85,t=16.261,37.755,37.805)、病例分析题得分(91.32±5.87 vs 80.65±7.48,91.60±4.51 vs 76.22±5.97,89.31±4.92 vs 75.94±5.21,t=2.266,9.433,2.828)均明显高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(均P<0.05);观察组问答题得分(90.69±4.05 vs 76.08±7.00)仅在第二周时与对照组差异有统计学意义(t=28.739,P<0.05)。观察组课堂效果(4.54±0.56 vs 2.81±0.96)、接受能力(4.42±0.60 vs 2.83±0.87)、学习兴趣(4.47±0.58 vs 2.82±0.92)、自学能力(4.50±0.56 vs 2.93±0.94)、解决问题的能力(4.57±0.58 vs 3.06±0.95)、临床思维能力(4.42±0.62 vs 2.85±0.94)和认同这种教学模式(4.47±0.53vs2.83±0.95)等7个项目教学满意度评分明显高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(t=13.814,4.995,11.537,15.500,6.154,7.934,15.748,均P<0.05)。结论主动脉瓣狭窄教学中使用3D打印结合PBL与CBL的教学效果及教学满意度明显高于传统教学方法,适宜于临床教学。

Objective This study aims to study the teaching effect of 3D printing combined with PBL and CBL in the teaching of aortic valve stenosis,in order to optimize the teaching process of doctors in routine training and improve the teaching quality.Methods A total of 144 resident physicians who received standardized training in the cardiology department of a certain hospital from January 1,2022 to July 31,2022 were selected.All resident physicians were randomly divided into a control group(receiving PBL and CBL combined teaching)and an observation group(combining 3D printing model teaching on the basis of the control group).The test results in the 1st,2nd,and 3rd weeks in the department were used as evaluation indicators.After the test,a questionnaire was used to understand the teaching satisfaction of the two groups.Results The observation group scored significantly higher than the control group in the three test items of objective multiple-choice questions(91.35±4.54 vs 74.99±9.17),essay questions(90.42±4.18 vs 77.57±5.57),and case analysis questions(90.74±3.99 vs 77.94±5.17),as well as the total score(272.50±11.91 vs 230.60±17.69).The differences were statistically significant(t=38.409,12.818,4.663,13.837,all P<0.05).In the first,second,and third weeks after teaching,the observation group's objective multiple-choice questions score(93.58±5.54 vs 81.85±9.23,91.56±5.05 vs 75.65±10.41,88.90±5.25 vs 67.47±10.85,t=16.261,37.755,37.805)and case analysis questions score(91.32±5.87 vs 80.65±7.48,91.60±4.51 vs 76.22±5.97,89.31±4.92 vs 75.94±5.21,t=2.266,9.433,2.828)were significantly higher than those of the control group.The differences were statistically significant(all P<0.05).The question score of the observation group(90.69±4.05 vs 76.08±7.00)was statistically different from the control group only in the second week(t=28.739,P<0.05).The observation group's teaching satisfaction scores for seven items,including classroom effectiveness(4.54±0.56 vs 2.81±0.96),receptive ability(4.42±0.60 vs 2.83±0.87),learning interest(4.47±0.58 vs 2.82±0.92),self-learning ability(4.50±0.56 vs 2.93±0.94),problem-solving ability(4.57±0.58 vs 3.06±0.95),clinical thinking ability(4.42±0.62 vs 2.85±0.94)and recognition of this teaching model(4.47±0.53 vs 2.83±0.95),were significantly higher than those of the control group.The differences were statistically significant(t=13.814,4.995,11.537,15.500,6.154,7.934,15.748,all P<0.05).Conclusions The teaching effect and teaching satisfaction of using 3D printing combined with PBL and CBL in aortic stenosis teaching are significantly higher than traditional teaching methods,and it is suitable for clinical teaching.