4.5 Article

Testing an empirically derived mental health training model featuring small groups, distributed practice and patient discussion

期刊

MEDICAL EDUCATION
卷 43, 期 2, 页码 140-145

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03256.x

关键词

psychiatry; *education; teaching; *methods; education; medical; graduate; *methods; group processes; patient participation; family practice; *education; clinical competence; *standards; programme evaluation

资金

  1. Illawarra Institute for Mental Health
  2. Australian Psychological Society
  3. Pfizer Inc
  4. Wyeth

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Internationally, family doctors seeking to enhance their skills in evidence-based mental health treatment are attending brief training workshops, despite clear evidence in the literature that short-term, massed formats are not likely to improve skills in this complex area. Reviews of the educational literature suggest that an optimal model of training would incorporate distributed practice techniques; repeated practice over a lengthy time period, small-group interactive learning, mentoring relationships, skills-based training and an ongoing discussion of actual patients. This study investigates the potential role of group-based training incorporating multiple aspects of good pedagogy for training doctors in basic competencies in brief cognitive behaviour therapy (BCBT). Six groups of family doctors (n = 32) completed eight 2-hour sessions of BCBT group training over a 6-month period. A baseline control design was utilised with pre- and post-training measures of doctors' BCBT skills, knowledge and engagement in BCBT treatment. Family doctors' knowledge, skills in and actual use of BCBT with patients improved significantly over the course of training compared with the control period. This research demonstrates preliminary support for the efficacy of an empirically derived group training model for family doctors. Brief CBT group-based training could prove to be an effective and viable model for future doctor training.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据