A comparison of learning outcomes and attitudes in student- versus faculty-led problem-based learning: an experimental study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare learning outcomes and perceptions of facilitator behaviours and small-group process in problem-based learning (PBL) groups led by students and those led by faculty. DESIGN: A prospective, Latin-square cross-over design was employed. Second-year medical students participated in 11 PBL cases over the course of the academic year. For each case, half the student groups were led by faculty and the other half by a student group member selected randomly to serve in the facilitator role. Learning outcomes were assessed by performance on objective examinations covering factual materials pertinent to the case. Perceptions of facilitator behaviours and of group functioning were assessed with a questionnaire completed at the end of each individual case. Focus-group discussions were held to gain more in-depth information about student perceptions and experience. Student-led sessions were observed at random by the investigators. SETTING: A state-supported, US medical school with a hybrid lecture-based and problem-based curriculum. SUBJECTS: One hundred and twenty-seven second-year medical students and 30 basic science and clinical faculty. RESULTS: No differences were detected in student performance on the objective evaluation based on whether the facilitator was a faculty member or peer group member, nor were there any differences in the perceptions of group process. Students gave peer facilitators slightly higher ratings in the second semester of the experiment. In the focus-group discussions, students voiced a general preference for student-led groups because they felt they were more efficient. Observation and focus-group reports suggest that groups led by students sometimes took short cuts in the PBL process. CONCLUSION: In a hybrid lecture- and PBL-based curriculum, student performance on objective examinations covering PBL materials is unaffected by the status of the facilitator (student vs. faculty). However, in peer-facilitated groups, students sometimes took short cuts in the PBL process that may undermine some of the intended goals of PBL.

An ounce of prevention? Evaluation of the 'Put Prevention into Practice' program.

BACKGROUND: The "Put Prevention into Practice" (PPIP) program was designed to enhance the capacity of health care providers to deliver clinical preventive services. This study was designed to evaluate the program's effectiveness when applied to family physicians in private practice settings. METHODS: Eight Midwestern practices that had purchased PPIP kits were identified and agreed to participate in the study. A comparative case study approach encompassing a variety of data collection techniques was used. These techniques included participant observation of clinic operations and patient encounters, semistructured and key informant interviews with physicians and staff members, chart reviews, and structured postpatient encounter and office environment checklists. Content analysis of the qualitative data and construction of the individual cases were done by consensus of the research team. RESULTS: PPIP materials are not being used, even by the clinics that ordered them. Physicians already providing quality preventive services prefer their existing materials to those in the PPIP kit. Sites that are underutilizing preventive services are unable or unwilling to independently implement the PPIP program. CONCLUSIONS: Development of technical support may facilitate implementation of PPIP materials into those practices most deficient in providing preventive services. Given the diversity of practice environments it is unlikely that a "one size fits all" approach will ever be able to address the needs of all providers.

Risk factors and recommendations for 230 adult primary care patients, based on U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines.

We used a computer program based on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines to identify recommendations for 230 adult patients who presented to an ambulatory family practice residency clinic. We entered risk factors into the computer program from sex-specific questionnaires that patients completed. On average, patients had 15.4 risk factors and 24.5 recommendations for preventive services (13.0 recommendations for screening, 10.5 for counseling, and 1.1 for immunizations). We noted a significant increase in the number of risk factors and recommendations with increasing age, except for counseling recommendations. The average patient incurs a large number of recommendations, which depend on many different risk factors, making the task of complete clinician compliance with the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines difficult. Many of these recommendations include counseling, which may take more time and require skills that clinicians may think they lack. Complete adherence may require several visits for the physician to address all recommendations. Measures to increase patient responsibility for health maintenance and innovations using comprehensive, interactive, and educational computer programs may help solve these problems.