Resumen

Objective: To compare the development of critical reading of research literature between reading in two phases and that associated to creative discussion among interns and medical students. Material and methods: Four groups were conformed: one followed a three-pronged strategy (guideline problem-solving, creative discussion and group plenary discussion) and included medical students with a grade average > 90 (g1, n = 9); the second group was identical but with medical students with a grade average < 90 (g2, n = 19); the third group followed a two-pronged strategy (guideline problem-solving and group discussion) with interns of general regional hospitals (g3, n = 17 and g4, n = 12). A validated and consistent evaluation instrument composed of 144 items was applied to all four groups before and after the educational strategies. The items evaluated the subjects’ interpretation, judgmental analysis and proposals of the analyzed studies with 47, 49 and 48 items respectively; case-control and cohort studies, diagnostic tests and clinical trials were also evaluated. Non-parametric tests were used to compare groups and results and a bias calculation was determined for each group. Results: The groups following the three-pronged approach obtained higher global median values than those following the two-pronged strategy (g1: 54-g2: 27 vs. g3: 12-g4: 25) [Kruskal-Wallis test < 0.01, Mann-Whitney U test < 0.05 in g1]. The interpretation, judgment and proposal abilities were also superior in g1 and g2, particularly in g1. Significant differences in the understanding of research methods also favored the groups following the three-pronged approach. Conclusions: An educational approach involving creative discussion is superior to the two-pronged strategy in fomenting critical reading of research projects among medical students, regardless of their grade average. The activities suggested in the three-pronged educational strategy are highly recommended.

Palabras clave: Critical reading medical education creative discussion research medical students.

2014-11-10   |   440 visitas   |   Evalua este artículo 0 valoraciones

Vol. 63 Núm.3. Mayo-Junio 2011 Pags. 268-278 Rev Invest Clin 2011; 63(3-ENGLISH)