Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2023 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Fernandes Filho, Ivan
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Sampaio Neto, Luiz Ferraz de
|
| Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
| Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Educação nas Profissões da Saúde
|
| Departamento: |
Faculdade de Ciências Médicas e da Saúde
|
| País: |
Brasil
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
https://repositorio.pucsp.br/jspui/handle/handle/39973
|
Resumo: |
Among active learning methodologies, problem-based learning (PBL) stands out, gaining notoriety in education and medical specialities, as well as in Gynecology and Obstetrics. The increasing use of this tool has brought some new challenges, as a large part of the teaching staff is unfamiliar with this teaching dynamic and is entirely dependent on the quality of the problems used as working material. The main objective of this study was to develop a manual of technical recommendations for elaborating problems to allow methodological improvements in the use of the ABP methodology. Through a systematic review, we searched for scientific articles indexed with the following terms in English and their respective representatives in Portuguese and Spanish, using the PICO strategy (acronym for P: population/patients; I: intervention; C: comparison/ control; O: outcome/outcome): "Education, Medical, Undergraduate" (P); "Problem-Based Learning" and "Gynecology" and "Obstetrics" (I); "Patient Satisfaction" or "Knowledge", (CO). The databases used in the review were LILACS, Pubmed/Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane. The period analyzed was from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2021. We obtained, in total, 26 articles referring to the topic, with 53.84% (n=14) of the articles coming from the Asian continent and 61.53% (n=16) published between 2006-2010 and 2016-2021. Around 57.69% (n=15) worked only with students, with the majority consisting of surveys/questionnaires (30.76% / n=8) and non-randomized comparative studies (26.92% / n=7). Regarding academic performance, 53.84% (n=14) demonstrated that ABP is superior concerning the ability to sediment information, and 34.61% (n=8) indicated that ABP is superior in developing clinical reasoning. Regarding satisfaction with the teaching-learning process, 42.30% (n=11) indicated that students had a positive experience with the method. Although there are possible limitations that can be criticized in the literature, PBL is a tool that, compared to traditional teaching, has potential in teaching GO and can contribute notably concerning academic performance and student satisfaction. Finally, based on this systematic review and the author's experience, the Manual of Technical Recommendations for Elaborating Problems in ABP for Gynecology and Obstetrics was created |
