目的 探讨基于Canvas平台混合式教学模式在研究生循证医学课程教学中的应用效果。 方法 选择2020—2021学年秋季学期选修北京大学医学部研究生循证医学课程的29名研究生为研究对象,采用传统线下课堂教学和Canvas平台辅助线上教学相结合的混合教学模式,在第一次授课开始前和最后一次授课结束后分别进行问卷调查,了解研究生循证医学课程相关知识点理解、文献阅读量、文献检索和阅读能力的变化。等级变量使用秩和检验,二分类变量使用χ² 检验。 结果 循证医学课程结束后,对23个课程相关知识点表示理解的研究生比课前有显著增加,如理解网状Meta分析的关键假定的研究生从24.1%(7/29)增加至89.7%(26/29),理解网状关系图的研究生从3.4%(1/29)增加至89.7%(26/29)。同时,每月医学文献阅读量超过20篇的研究生依旧为10人,能够熟练使用文献检索工具的研究生从17人增加至21人,其差异均无统计学意义(均P≥0.05)。 结论 基于Canvas平台的混合式教学模式在提高研究生循证医学课程相关知识点理解方面取得了较好的成效,研究生在文献阅读量、文献检索和阅读能力方面并未提高。

Objective To evaluates the teaching effect of blended teaching mode based on Canvas platform in evidence-based medicine course for postgraduates. Methods Totally 29 postgraduates who had completed learning of evidence-based medicine were enrolled as research objects.The blended method was implemented by traditional offline teaching supplemented with Canvas platform supported online teaching.At the beginning of the first class and the end of the last class, the same questionnaire was used to investigate students' understanding of knowledge of course, number of literature readed, capacity of retrieving and reading literature. Rank-sum test is used for rank variables, and χ² test is used for binary variables. Results After the course, the percentage of students who had better understanding of 23 knowledge points were significantly increased such as key assumptions of network meta-analysis from 24.1%(7/29) to 89.7%(26/29) and definition of network relationship diagram from 3.4％(1/29) to 89.7%(26/29).But the number of students who read more than 20 medical literatures per month was still 10. The number of students who could skillfully use literature retrieval tools increased from 17 to 21. There was no statistically significant difference in the capacity of literature reading and literature retrieval (all P≥0.05). Conclusions The blended teaching mode based on canvas platform has achieved good result in improving the understanding of relevant knowledge of evidence-based medicine courses for postgraduates, while the changes in literature reading quantity, literature retrieval and reading ability of students were not significant.