OPINIONS OF MEDICAL STUDENTS ABOUT PHASE I ANATOMY EDUCATION: A PRELIMINARY STUDY. Opiniones de los estudiantes de medicina acerca de la Fase I de la enseñanza de Anatomía: Un estudio preliminar

  • Ayla Kurkcuoglu Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Baskent University
  • Can Pelin Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Baskent University
  • Ragiba Zagyapan Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Baskent University
  • Ersin Ogus Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Baskent University

Resumen

Objetivos: La estandarización de la educación médica y programas centrados en la salida se han vuelto más importantes en los últimos años. Sin embargo, todavía no hay consenso sobre el lugar de las ciencias básicas en el mencionado concepto. A pesar que la importancia de la anatomía en la educación médica es  indiscutible, su lugar en el currículo médico todavía se está discutiendo ampliamente. Varios estudios y observaciones se han publicado hasta hoy sobre la educación anatómica básica. La mayoría de ellos reflejan las opiniones de los médicos clínicos o tutores médicos. El número de estudios de evaluación de la educación en anatomía en el pregrado, desde la perspectiva de los estudiantes de medicina, es limitado. El presente estudio tiene como objetivo evaluar las opiniones de los estudiantes de medicina en las clases de anatomía. Material y métodos: En este estudio, a 102 estudiantes de medicina que completaron la fase II de la educación en la Universidad de Baskent se les dio un cuestionario con 32 preguntas de tipo Likert preparados por los Departamentos de Anatomía y Medicina de la Educación, entre diciembre de 2012 y mayo de 2013. Las preguntas fueron dadas a los estudiantes en junio, justo antes de terminar el período de educación relacionado. Resultados y Conclusiones: Los estudiantes de medicina enfatizaron que entendían la importancia de la anatomía mucho después de haber terminado la educación de fase I cuando estaban tomando los cursos clínicos y mencionaron que el aporte de sus conocimientos de anatomía básica para su práctica clínica era débil. Los resultados del estudio indicaron que los estudiantes prefieren una educación integrada verticalmente, con orientación clínica e interactiva, y dieron más valor a la práctica de laboratorio en lugar de las conferencias clínicas.

 

Objectives: Standardization of medical education and output-focused core programs has become more important in the recent years. However, still there is no consensus on the place of basic sciences in the aforementioned concept. Even though the importance of anatomy for a qualified medical education is indisputable, its place in medical curriculum is still being widely discussed. Several studies and comments have been published up to date on basic anatomy education. Most of these reflect the opinions of clinical doctors or medical tutors. The number of studies evaluating undergraduate anatomy education from the perspective of medical students is limited. The present study aims to evaluate the opinions of medical students on anatomy classes in medical education. Material and Methods: In this study, 102 medical students who completed phase II education in Baskent University were given a questionnaire containing 32 Likert’s type questions prepared by the Departments of Anatomy and Medical Education between December 2012 and May 2013.The questioner was given to the students in June just before the education of the related term was completed. Results and Conclusion: The medical students emphasized that they understood the importance of anatomy long after they had completed phase I education while they were taking the clinical courses, and they mentioned that the contribution of their basic anatomy knowledge to their clinical practice was weak. The results of the study indicated that students preferred a vertically integrated, clinically oriented and interactive education, and gave more value to laboratory practice rather than the clinical lectures. 

Citas

Al-Gindan YM, Al-Sulaiman AA, Al-Faraidy A. 2000. Undergraduate curriculum reform in Saudi medical schools. Which direction to go? Saudi Med J 21: 324–26.

Al-Shehri AM, Al Haqwi AI, Al Ghamdi AS, Al-Turki SA. 2001. Challenges facing continuing medical education and the Saudi Council for Health Specialities. Saudi Med J 22: 3–5.

Al-Wardy NM, Rizvi SG, Bayoumi RA. 2009. Is performance in pre-clinical assessment a good predictor of the final Doctor of Medicine grade? Saudi Med J 30: 1590–94.

Barrows HS. 1986. A taxonomy of problem based learning methods. Med Educ 20: 481-86.

Bergman EM, Prince KJAH, Drukker J, van der Vleuten CPM, Scherpbier AJJA. 2008 How much anatomy is enough? Anat Sci Educ 1: 184-88.

Böckers A, Jerg-Bretzke, Lamp C, Brinkmann A, Traue HC, Böckers TM. 2010. The gross anatomy course: Analysis of its importance Anat Sci Educ 3: 3-11.

Dowson AG, Bruce SAM, Heyes SD, Stewart IJ. 2009 Student views on the introduction of anatomy teaching packages into clinical attachments. Clinical Anat 22: 267-72.

Evand DJ, Watt DJ. 2005. Provision of anatomy teaching in a new British medical school: getting the mix right. Anat Rec B New Anat 284: 2–27.

Fitzgerald JEF, White MJ, Tang SW, Maxwell-Armstrong CA, James DK. 2008. Are we teaching sufficient anatomy at medical school? The opinions of newly qualified doctors. Clinical Anat 21: 718-24.

Goodwin H. 2000. Litigation and surgical practice in the UK. Br J Surg 87: 977-79.

Khan MN, Telmesani A, Alkhotani A, Elzouki A, Edrees B, Alsulimani MH. 2011. Comparison of jeopardy game format versus traditional lecture format as a teaching methodology in medical education. Saudi Med J 32: 1172–76.

McHanwell S, Davies DC, Morris J, Parkin I, Whiten S, Atkinson M, Dyball R, Ockelford C, Standring S, Wilton J. 2007. A core syllabus in anatomy for medical students–adding common sense to need to know. Eur J Anat 11: 3-18.

Nayak S, Ramnarayan K, Somayaji N, Bairy KL. 2008 Teaching anatomy in a problem based learning (PBL) curriculum. Neuroanatomy 59: 2-3.

Nicholson H. 2005. The future of anatomy: Where do we go?. ANZ J. Surg 75: 95

Patel KM, Moxham BJ. 2006. Attitudes of professional anatomists to curricular change. Clin Anat 19: 132-41.

Prince KJAH, van de Wiel MWJ, Scherpbieer AJJA, van der Veulten CPM, Boshuizen HPA. 2000 A qualitative analysis of the transition from theory to practice in undergraduate training in undergraduate training in a PBL medical school. Adv. Health Sci Educ 5: 105-16.

Prince KJAH, Vam Mameren H. Hylkema N, Drukker J, Scherpbieer AJJA, van der Vleuten CPM. 2003 Does problem based learning lead to deficiencies in basic science knowledge? An empirical case on anatomy. Med Educ 37: 15-21.

Pryde FR, Black SM. 2005. Anatomy in Scotland: 20 years of change. Scott Med J 50: 96-98.

Regehr G, Norman GR. 1996. Issues in cognitive psychology: implications for professional education. Acad Med 71: 988-1001.

Swartz WJ. 2006. Using gross anatomy to teach and assess professionalism in the first year of medical school. Clin Anat 19: 237-441.

Verhoeven BH, Verwijnen GM, Scherpbier AJJA, van der Vleuten CPM. 2002. Growth of medical knowledge. Med Educ 36: 711-17.

Waterson SW, Steward IJ. 2005. Survey of clinicians’ attitudes to the anatomical teaching and knowledge of medical students. Clin Anat 18: 380-84.

Publicado
2016-03-28
Sección
Contribuciones Originales