Problem-based and related learning approaches in family medicine residency: a scoping review of four countries
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.81284Abstract
Background: Postgraduate medical education (PGME) bridges the transition from medical school to independent practice. Problem-based learning (PBL), widely used in undergraduate medical education, has emerged as a promising alternative to traditional lectures in PGME. However, its impact on family medicine training remains unclear.
Objective: In this scoping review, we describe the use of PBL in family medicine PGME programs and examine its educational and healthcare-related outcomes.
Methods: Using Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework, we conducted a scoping review of PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science, and ProQuest in January 2025. Two reviewers independently screened articles, extracting and synthesizing data according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR).
Results: Twelve studies met inclusion criteria, illustrating diverse PBL delivery methods in family medicine PGME. Programs integrated PBL as standalone sessions, an adjunct, or blended with traditional methods. Learning groups often included mixed specialties (e.g., family medicine and internal medicine) and varied learner levels (e.g., residents and attending physicians). Most studies reported high learner satisfaction and improved perceptions of topics; however, objective assessments of knowledge, pre- and post-PBL, showed no significant improvement. Limited data on behavior and patient outcomes suggested potential benefits.
Conclusion: PBL in family medicine PGME appears to enhance engagement and satisfaction but shows mixed educational outcomes. Further research is needed to determine its optimal role in training.
Downloads
References
1. Zakrajsek T, Newton WP. Promoting active learning in residency didactic sessions. Fam Med. 2021 May 26; https://doi.org/10.22454/fammed.2021.894932 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22454/FamMed.2021.894932
2. Batalden MK, Warm EJ, Logio LS. Beyond a curricular design of convenience. Acad Med. 2013 May;88(5):644–51. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e31828b09f4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31828b09f4
3. Eid A, Hsieh P, Shah P, Wolff R. Cross-sectional longitudinal study of the academic half-day format in a hematology-oncology fellowship training program. BMC Med Educ. 2015 Aug 25;15(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-015-0418-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-015-0418-y
4. Barrows HS, Neufeld VR. The McMaster philosophy. Acad Med. 1974 Nov;49(11):1040–50. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-197411000-00004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-197411000-00004
5. Baum KD, Axtell S. Trends in North American medical education. Keio J Med. 2005;54(1):22–8. https://doi.org/10.2302/kjm.54.22 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2302/kjm.54.22
6. Dochy F, Segers M, Van den Bossche P, Gijbels D. Effects of problem-based learning: a meta-analysis. Learn Instr. 2003 Oct;13(5):533–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-4752(02)00025-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00025-7
7. Joshi T, Budhathoki P, Adhikari A, Poudel A, Raut S, Shrestha DB. Improving medical education: a narrative review. Cureus. 2021 Oct 14; https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.18773 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.18773
8. Rogal SMM, Snider PD. Rethinking the lecture: the application of problem based learning methods to atypical contexts. Nurse Educ Pract. 2008 May;8(3):213–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2007.09.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2007.09.001
9. Cooper AZ, Hsieh G, Kiss JE, Huang GC. Flipping out: does the flipped classroom learning model work for GME? J Grad Med Educ. 2017 Jun 1;9(3):392–3. https://doi.org/10.4300/jgme-d-16-00827.1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-16-00827.1
10. Phillips WR, Haynes DG. The domain of family practice: scope, role, and function. Fam Med. 2001;33(4):273–7. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11322520/ [Accessed on Feb 1, 2025.]
11. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005 Feb;8(1):19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
12. Mak S, Thomas A. Steps for conducting a scoping review. J Grad Med Educ. 2022;14(5):565–7. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-22-00621.1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-22-00621.1
13. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. Prisma extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-SCR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467–73. https://doi.org/10.7326/m18-0850 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
14. College of Family Physicians of Canada. The re-evaluation of the CFPC route to certification without examination for internationally trained family physicians. Mississauga (ON): CFPC; 2022. Available from: https://www.cfpc.ca/CFPC/media/Resources/Examinations/AEG-Executive-Summary-FINAL-EN.pdf, [Accessed on March 1, 2025.]
15. Wood DF. ABC of learning and teaching in medicine: problem based learning. BMJ. 2003 Feb 8;326(7384):328–30. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7384.328 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7384.328
16. Aslan A. Problem-based learning in live online classes: learning achievement, problem-solving skill, communication skill, and interaction. Comput Educ. 2021 Oct;171:104237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104237 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104237
17. Alliger GM, Janak EA. Kirkpatrick’s levels of training criteria: thirty years later. Pers Psychol. 1989 Jun;42(2):331–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1989.tb00661.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1989.tb00661.x
18. Steinert Y, Mann K, Centeno A, et al. A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to improve teaching effectiveness in medical education: beme guide no. 8. Med Teach. 2006 Jan;28(6):497–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590600902976 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590600902976
19. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006 Jan;3(2):77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
20. Barker TH, Habibi N, Aromataris E, et al. The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias quasi-experimental studies. JBI Evid Synth. 2024;22(3):378–88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-23-00268
21. Clemens M. Problem-based learning for family medicine residents: a scoping review. 2025 Feb 2. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SXGW9
22. Agrawal S, Saluja I, Kaczorowski J. A prospective before-and-after trial of an educational intervention about pharmaceutical marketing. Acad Med. 2004 Nov;79(11):1046–51. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200411000-00006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200411000-00006
23. Benson BL, Ha M, Stansfield RB, Markova T. Health disparities educational initiative for residents. Ochsner J. 2018;18(2):151–8. https://doi.org/10.31486/toj.17.0082 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31486/toj.17.0082
24. Colenda C, Wadland W, Hayes O, et al. Training tomorrow’s clinicians today—managed care essentials: a process for curriculum development. Am J Manag Care. 2000;6(5):561–72. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12345714_Training_tomorrows_clinicians_today_-_Managed_care_essentials_A_process_for_curriculum_development. [Accessed on January 7, 2025].
25. Cooper V, Bartlam A. The role of problem-based learning in a new family practice residency curriculum. Acad Med. 2001 May;76(5):559. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200105000-00106 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200105000-00106
26. Danczak A. Enriched educational speed dating: making education more nutritious. Educ Prim Care. 2012;23(6):434–6. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23232135/
27. Haidet P, Morgan RO, O’Malley K, Moran BJ, Richards BF. A controlled trial of active versus passive learning strategies in a large group setting. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2004;9(1):15–27. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:ahse.0000012213.62043.45 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AHSE.0000012213.62043.45
28. Holmes AV, McLeod AY, Thesing C, Kramer S, Howard CR. Physician breastfeeding education leads to practice changes and improved clinical outcomes. Breastfeed Med. 2012 Dec;7(6):403–8. https://doi.org/10.1089/bfm.2012.0028 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/bfm.2012.0028
29. Klein D, Schipper S. Family medicine curriculum: improving the quality of academic sessions. Can Fam Physician. 2008;54:214–8. Available from: https://www.cfp.ca/content/cfp/54/2/214.full.pdf [Accessed on January 7, 2025].
30. Philp EB, Parker P, Rubin N, Tietze PH, Philp JR. The difficult patient: creation of a curriculum by third-year family practice residents. Fam Med. 1996;28(8):553–8. Available from: https://europepmc.org/article/med/8884251. [Accessed on January 7, 2025].
31. Raleigh MF, Wilson GA, Moss DA, et al. Same content, different methods. Fam Med. 2018 Feb 2;50(2):100–5. https://doi.org/10.22454/fammed.2018.222922 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22454/FamMed.2018.222922
32. Sass P, Edelsack P. Teaching community health assessment skills in a problem-based format. Acad Med. 2001 Jan;76(1):88–91. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200101000-00023 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200101000-00023
33. Zimmerman RK, Janosky JE, Wald ER, et al. Development and multicenter evaluation of multi-station clinical teaching scenarios on immunization: the ATPM-CDC teaching immunization for medical-education (TIME) project. Am J Prev Med. 1997 Mar;13(2):78–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-3797(18)30202-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(18)30202-2
34. Biggs JB. Learning strategies, student motivation patterns, and subjectively perceived success. Cogn Strateg Educ Perform. 1984:111–34.
35. Gurpinar E, Kulac E, Tetik C, Akdogan I, Mamakli S. Do learning approaches of medical students affect their satisfaction with problem-based learning? Adv Physiol Educ. 2013 Mar;37(1):85–8. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00119.2012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00119.2012
36. Cooke M, Moyle K. Students’ evaluation of problem-based learning. Nurse Educ Today. 2002 May;22(4):330–9. https://doi.org/10.1054/nedt.2001.0713 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1054/nedt.2001.0713
37. Ludmerer KM. Time and medical education. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132(1):25–8. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-132-1-200001040-00005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-132-1-200001040-00005
38. Kusurkar RA, Croiset G, Ten Cate OTh. Twelve tips to stimulate intrinsic motivation in students through autonomy-supportive classroom teaching derived from self-determination theory. Med Teach. 2011 Dec;33(12):978–82. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159x.2011.599896 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.599896
39. Azer SA. Problem-based learning: a critical review of its educational objectives and the rationale for its use. Neurosciences (Riyadh). 2001 Apr 1;6(2):83–9.
40. Knowles MS. The adult learner: a neglected species. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company Book Division; 1973.
41. Colliver JA. Effectiveness of PBL curricula. Med Educ. 2000 Nov 21;34(11):959–60. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.0818a.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.0818a.x
42. Donner RS, Bickley H. Problem-based learning in American medical education: an overview. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1993;81(3):294–8. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC225793/pdf/mlab00112-0052.pdf. [Accessed on April 1, 2025].
43. Nelson E. Elements of problem-based learning: suggestions for implementation in the asynchronous environment. Int J e-Learn. 2010;9(1):99–114. Available from: https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/27051/
44. Koh GC-H, Khoo HE, Wong ML, Koh D. The effects of problem-based learning during medical school on physician competency: a systematic review. CMAJ. 2008 Jan 1;178(1):34–41. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.070565 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.070565
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Megan Clemens, Josheil Kaur Boparai, Russell Dawe, Susan Avery
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Submission of an original manuscript to the Canadian Medical Education Journal will be taken to mean that it represents original work not previously published, that it is not being considered elsewhere for publication. If accepted for publication, it will be published online and it will not be published elsewhere in the same form, for commercial purposes, in any language, without the consent of the publisher.
Authors who publish in the Canadian Medical Education Journal agree to release their articles under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 Canada Licence. This licence allows anyone to copy and distribute the article for non-commercial purposes provided that appropriate attribution is given. For details of the rights an author grants users of their work, please see the licence summary and the full licence.
