Volume 9, Issue 4 (12-2025)
EBHPME 2025, 9(4): 240-250 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Quon S, Truong I, Moroz L, Zheng K. Evidence-Based Medicine Education in Undergraduate Medical Students:
A Scoping Review. EBHPME 2025; 9 (4) :240-250
URL: http://jebhpme.ssu.ac.ir/article-1-555-en.html
URL: http://jebhpme.ssu.ac.ir/article-1-555-en.html
Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Columbia. , quons@student.ubc.ca
Abstract: (202 Views)
Introduction: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is a foundational competency for medical trainees and a core principle of contemporary clinical practice. Medical schools increasingly integrate EBM teaching across pre-clerkship and clerkship training, yet substantial variability remains in curricular structure, pedagogy, assessment approaches, and real-world learning transfer. This scoping review aimed to map the existing literature on EBM education for medical students, with attention to curriculum models, teaching strategies, learner outcomes, and implementation challenges.
Materials and Methods: Following the PRISMA-ScR framework, the authors systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, PsycINFO, and Scopus from inception to July 2025. Eligible studies described EBM-related teaching, curricula, or assessment in undergraduate medical education. Also, data were extracted on study characteristics, pedagogical methods, EBM competencies targeted, outcomes (knowledge, skills, attitudes, behaviours), and reported barriers and facilitators.
Results: Twenty-seven studies were included, representing diverse geographic contexts and spanning pre-clinical and clinical training. Curricula commonly target question formulation, literature searching, critical appraisal, and application of evidence to patient care. Four themes emerged: 1) heterogeneity in curriculum design and competency frameworks, 2) active learning and clinically integrated teaching as key drivers of engagement, 3) assessment challenges and inconsistent outcome measurement, and 4) implementation barriers including faculty expertise, time constraints, and hidden curriculum influences. Most studies reported improved EBM knowledge and self-efficacy, while fewer demonstrated sustained skill retention or changes in clinical behavior. Programs that embedded EBM longitudinally within clinical contexts and used structured appraisal tools appeared more likely to report meaningful learner engagement.
Conclusion: EBM education for medical students is widely implemented but variably delivered and assessed. Evidence supports active, clinically contextualized approaches, yet robust evaluation of long-term outcomes and standardized assessment tools remains limited. For educational planners and instructors, findings suggest that integrating EBM longitudinally across training, embedding teaching within authentic clinical scenarios, investing in faculty development, and aligning assessments with competency-based frameworks may strengthen skill retention and practice transfer. Future work should prioritize longitudinal curricula, faculty development, and harmonized competency-based evaluation.
Materials and Methods: Following the PRISMA-ScR framework, the authors systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, PsycINFO, and Scopus from inception to July 2025. Eligible studies described EBM-related teaching, curricula, or assessment in undergraduate medical education. Also, data were extracted on study characteristics, pedagogical methods, EBM competencies targeted, outcomes (knowledge, skills, attitudes, behaviours), and reported barriers and facilitators.
Results: Twenty-seven studies were included, representing diverse geographic contexts and spanning pre-clinical and clinical training. Curricula commonly target question formulation, literature searching, critical appraisal, and application of evidence to patient care. Four themes emerged: 1) heterogeneity in curriculum design and competency frameworks, 2) active learning and clinically integrated teaching as key drivers of engagement, 3) assessment challenges and inconsistent outcome measurement, and 4) implementation barriers including faculty expertise, time constraints, and hidden curriculum influences. Most studies reported improved EBM knowledge and self-efficacy, while fewer demonstrated sustained skill retention or changes in clinical behavior. Programs that embedded EBM longitudinally within clinical contexts and used structured appraisal tools appeared more likely to report meaningful learner engagement.
Conclusion: EBM education for medical students is widely implemented but variably delivered and assessed. Evidence supports active, clinically contextualized approaches, yet robust evaluation of long-term outcomes and standardized assessment tools remains limited. For educational planners and instructors, findings suggest that integrating EBM longitudinally across training, embedding teaching within authentic clinical scenarios, investing in faculty development, and aligning assessments with competency-based frameworks may strengthen skill retention and practice transfer. Future work should prioritize longitudinal curricula, faculty development, and harmonized competency-based evaluation.
Keywords: Evidence-Based Medicine, Medical Education, Undergraduate Medical Education, Critical Appraisal, Information Literacy, Curriculum, Scoping Review
Type of Study: Original article |
Subject:
Health Policy
Received: 2025/12/25 | Accepted: 2026/06/9 | Published: 2025/12/8
Received: 2025/12/25 | Accepted: 2026/06/9 | Published: 2025/12/8
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
