The efficacy of the BOPPPS teaching model in clinical and health education: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: BOPPPS (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. METHODS: A 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. RESULTS: A 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). CONCLUSION: BOPPPS 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.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,027 | 0,059 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,020 | 0,041 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,010 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».