院校共建教研室背景下“双师型”医学教师系统性培养模式的构建与验证研究

Study on the Construction and Validation of a Systematic Training Model for “Dual-Qualified” Medical Teachers within Institution-Hospital Co-Constructed Teaching and Research Sections

摘要: 目的：针对医学教育中“双师型”教师培养体系系统性不足、医教融合不深、评价方式单一等问题，构建并验证一个以院校共建教研室为载体、聚焦医学教育特点的“双师型”教师系统性培养模式。方法：采用准实验研究设计，选取本院90名医学专业教师，按匹配原则分为实验组与对照组，各45人。实验组实施基于“三维能力模型”“双循环培养路径”及“发展性评价体系”的系统性干预方案，为期18个月。对照组接受常规师资培养。于干预前(T0)、干预9个月(T1)、干预18个月(T2)采用《医学“双师型”教师综合能力评估量表》进行测评，并收集学生教学满意度及学生临床考核通过率。采用重复测量方差分析及双重差分模型评估干预效果。结果：T2时点，实验组教师在教学能力、临床实践能力和教学研究能力三个维度的得分及总分均显著高于对照组(P < 0.01)。实验组教师所指导学生的临床考核通过率及教学满意度亦显著提升(P < 0.05)。双重差分分析显示，该培养模式对教师综合能力总分的净提升效应为0.92分(P < 0.001)。质性访谈揭示教师经历了“角色适应–能力整合–自主发展”的成长路径。结论：基于院校共建教研室构建的“三维·双循环·发展性评价”一体化培养模式，能有效促进医学教师“双师”素养的深度融合与系统性提升，为深化医教协同提供了可行的实践方案与实证依据。

Abstract: Objective: To address the lack of a systematic training framework, insufficient integration of medical practice and teaching, and simplistic evaluation methods for “dual-qualified” teachers in medical education, this study aimed to develop and validate a systematic training model. This model utilizes institution-hospital co-constructed teaching and research sections as a platform and is tailored to the specific needs of medical education. Methods: A quasi-experimental design was employed. Ninety medical teachers were recruited and assigned to an experimental group or a control group (n = 45 each) using a matched-pairs design. The experimental group received an 18-month systematic intervention based on a “Three-Dimensional Competency Model”, “Dual-Cycle Training Pathway”, and “Developmental Evaluation System”. The control group received routine training. Outcomes were assessed at baseline (T0), 9 months (T1), and 18 months (T2) using an investigator-developed Comprehensive Competency Assessment Scale, student teaching satisfaction scores and student clinical assessment pass rates were collected. The effect was evaluated using repeated-measures ANOVA and a difference-in-differences (DID) model. Results: After the 18-month intervention (T2), the experimental group demonstrated significantly greater improvement in teaching ability, clinical practice ability, teaching research ability, and total competency scores compared to the control group (P < 0.01). The clinical assessment pass rates and teaching satisfaction of students supervised by the experimental group were also significantly higher (P < 0.05). The DID analysis confirmed a significant net intervention effect on the total competency score (effect size: 0.92 points, P < 0.001). Qualitative analysis revealed a teacher growth trajectory characterized by “role adaptation, competency integration, and autonomous development”. Conclusion: The integrated “Three-Dimensional, Dual-Cycle, Developmental Evaluation” training model, implemented within the framework of co-constructed teaching and research sections, is an effective strategy for enhancing the integrated competencies and systematic professional development of dual-qualified medical teachers. This study provides empirical evidence and a practical framework for deepening collaboration between medical education and clinical practice.