检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:严艳[1,2] 刘彩云[1,2] 陈启林[1,3] 曾宪涛[1,4] 刘东艳[1,2] 冷卫东[1,3]
机构地区:[1]湖北医药学院附属太和医院口腔科,湖北十堰442000 [2]湖北医药学院护理学院,湖北十堰442000 [3]湖北医药学院口腔医学院,湖北十堰442000 [4]湖北医药学院循证医学中心,湖北十堰442000
出 处:《临床口腔医学杂志》2014年第11期692-693,共2页Journal of Clinical Stomatology
基 金:湖北省教育科学"十二五"规划2012年度重点课题(2012A050);2011年湖北医药学院校级科研立项(2011012)
摘 要:目的:采用平行对照设计,探讨学生标准化病人(SSP)教学与传统教学法在口腔护理见习中的教学效果。方法:招募并培养SSP,再将198名护理本科生按照班级分为实验组和对照组分别进行SSP教学和常规教学,教学结束后对两组学生进行问卷调查。调查结果采用SPSS 19.0软件进行统计分析。结果:最终纳入186名学生进入分析。问卷回收率100%,有效率93.01%。实验组平均得分72.63±10.5分,对照组平均得分51.22±10.8分,表明SSP组学生的积极性、主动性、整体护理观念和专业意识均显著优于传统法教学组。结论:在口腔护理见习中采用SSP辅助教学,教学效果优于传统法教学模式。Objective:To evaluate the effectiveness of student standardized patients(SSP) and conventional method in the dental nursing trainee teaching using a parallel control design. Method:Recruit volunteers and cultivate them as SSP,then divided 198 nursing undergraduates into the SSP teaching group and traditional teaching group according to the classes. At the end of teaching, the students were asked to accomplish the questionnaire. The data was analyzed using SPSS 19.0 software. Result:Finally 186 students were entered into the analysis. The recovery rate of questionnaire was 100%and the efficient was 93.01 %. The average score of SSP group was 72.63±10.5,while the control group was 51.22±10.8. This indicated that the positivity,initiative,overall nursing and specialty awareness were all higher in SSP teaching method. Conclusion:The SSP teaching method has better teaching effect and greater acceptance,compared with conventional method.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:3.19.76.4