@文章{信息:doi/10.2196/12967，作者=“Kyaw, bone Myint和Posadzki, Pawel和Paddock, Sophie和Car, Josip和Campbell, James和Tudor Car, Lorainne”，标题=“数字健康教育合作的数字教育对医学生沟通技能的有效性:系统评价和元分析”，期刊=“J Med Internet Res”，年份=“2019”，月份=“8”，日期=“27”，卷=“21”，数量=“8”，页数=“e12967”，关键词=“随机控制试验;有效性;系统评价;沟通技巧;背景:有效的沟通技巧在诊断和治疗过程中以及在建立医患关系中是必不可少的。目的:我们的目的是评估数字教育对医学生沟通技能发展的有效性。总体而言，我们评估了数字教育是否可以提高未来医生的沟通技能质量。方法:我们进行了系统综述，并检索了1990年1月至2018年9月发表的7个电子数据库和2个随机对照试验(rct)和聚类rct (crct)的试验注册中心。两名审稿人独立筛选引用，从纳入的研究中提取数据，并评估偏倚风险。我们还使用建议、评估、发展和评价分级评估(GRADE)评估了证据的质量。 Results: We included 12 studies with 2101 medical students, of which 10 were RCTs and two were cRCTs. The digital education included online modules, virtual patient simulations, and video-assisted oral feedback. The control groups included didactic lectures, oral feedback, standard curriculum, role play, and no intervention as well as less interactive forms of digital education. The overall risk of bias was high, and the quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low. For skills outcome, meta-analysis of three studies comparing digital education to traditional learning showed no statistically significant difference in postintervention skills scores between the groups (standardized mean difference [SMD]=--0.19; 95{\%} CI --0.9 to 0.52; I2=86{\%}, N=3 studies [304 students]; small effect size; low-quality evidence). Similarly, a meta-analysis of four studies comparing the effectiveness of blended digital education (ie, online or offline digital education plus traditional learning) and traditional learning showed no statistically significant difference in postintervention skills between the groups (SMD=0.15; 95{\%} CI --0.26 to 0.56; I2=86{\%}; N=4 studies [762 students]; small effect size; low-quality evidence). The additional meta-analysis of four studies comparing more interactive and less interactive forms of digital education also showed little or no difference in postintervention skills scores between the two groups (SMD=0.12; 95{\%} CI: --0.09 to 0.33; I2=40{\%}; N=4 studies [893 students]; small effect size; moderate-quality evidence). For knowledge outcome, two studies comparing the effectiveness of blended online digital education and traditional learning reported no difference in postintervention knowledge scores between the groups (SMD=0.18; 95{\%} CI: --0.2 to 0.55; I2=61{\%}; N=2 studies [292 students]; small effect size; low-quality evidence). The findings on attitudes, satisfaction, and patient-related outcomes were limited or mixed. None of the included studies reported adverse outcomes or economic evaluation of the interventions. Conclusions: We found low-quality evidence showing that digital education is as effective as traditional learning in medical students' communication skills training. Blended digital education seems to be at least as effective as and potentially more effective than traditional learning for communication skills and knowledge. We also found no difference in postintervention skills between more and less interactive forms of digital education. There is a need for further research to evaluate the effectiveness of other forms of digital education such as virtual reality, serious gaming, and mobile learning on medical students' attitude, satisfaction, and patient-related outcomes as well as the adverse effects and cost-effectiveness of digital education. ", issn="1438-8871", doi="10.2196/12967", url="//www.mybigtv.com/2019/8/e12967/", url="https://doi.org/10.2196/12967", url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31456579" }