Ying Zhu,* Jiaojiao Zhang,* Jing Fei, Huibin Fang, Zhigang Zhang

Department of Gynecology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, People’s Republic of China

*These authors contributed equally to this work

Correspondence: Zhigang Zhang, Department of Gynecology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, People’s Republic of China, Email zzg2011@zju.edu.cn

Background: Gynecology residency training necessitates a robust educational framework to cultivate clinical competency, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills. Traditional lecture-based teaching methods are deficient in fostering active learning and clinical decision-making. Problem-based learning (PBL) and case-based learning (CBL) have emerged as learner-centered approaches that enhance medical education by integrating theoretical knowledge with clinical practice. This review aims to explain the efficacy, implementation frameworks, challenges, and comparative value of PBL and CBL in gynecology residency education, and explores the role of instructional technology integration.
Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed, ERIC, Scopus, Embase, and EBSCO (January 2010–January 2025) using keywords: “problem-based learning”, “case-based learning”, “gynecology education”, “residency training”. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies on PBL/CBL interventions in gynecology residency with qualitative/quantitative outcomes. Ten articles met the criteria after screening.
Results: Both PBL and CBL significantly outperform in enhancing clinical decision-making, differential diagnosis, knowledge retention, procedural planning, and long-term knowledge application. PBL utilizes open-ended problems to cultivate self-directed learning, critical thinking, and collaborative problem-solving (eg, managing complex AUB etiologies). CBL employs structured clinical cases to bridge theoretical knowledge with practical application, improving diagnostic reasoning and patient management skills. Key implementation frameworks involve careful pre-session preparation, facilitator-guided discussions on authentic cases, and structured feedback. Challenges include significant faculty time for case design/facilitation, resource intensity, and competency assessment. PBL fosters deep theoretical understanding, while CBL excels in clinical skill translation. Integrating both approaches creates a balanced curriculum. Augmenting PBL/CBL with simulation, flipped classrooms, mobile learning, and AI enhances accessibility, personalization, and procedural skill practice.
Conclusion: PBL and CBL are transformative pedagogical strategies for gynecology residency training, effectively developing competencies needed for complex clinical practice. Successful implementation requires rigorously designed cases, faculty trained in facilitative guidance, and strategic technology integration. These approaches prepare residents not only as skilled technicians but as adaptable, patient-centered practitioners capable of navigating evolving healthcare challenges. Investment in faculty development and technology-enhanced PBL/CBL models is crucial for advancing gynecologic education globally.

Keywords: problem-based learning, case-based learning, gynecology residency, medical education, clinical training, active learning, instructional technology