ArticleJournal of advances in medical education & professionalism2015
Qualitative Evaluation of General Practitioner Training Program as Viewed by Graduates from Shiraz, Fasa and Jahrom Medical Universities.
Article in Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pathology of General Practice Curriculum from the Viewpoint of Students and Professors.Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism · 2021Article
- Implementation and evaluation of extracurricular theme for undergraduate basic sciences medical courses at Shiraz Medical School.Journal of education and health promotion · 2021Article
- Psychometric properties of the Persian version of the Ambulatory Care Learning Educational Environment Measure (ACLEEM) questionnaire, Shiraz, Iran.Advances in medical education and practice · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe majority of countries have brought the quality of higher education into focus in the past few years. They have tried to improve the quality of their own higher education. The studies show that Iranian Universities are not at an accepted level in terms of quality. They have encountered several problems which have diminished their quality level. This study aimed at assessing the quality of medical education program as viewed by general practitioners graduated from Shiraz, Fasa and Jahrom Medical Universities.
methodsThis is a cross-sectional study. 215 subjects were selected based on a census of all the general practitioners graduated from Shiraz, Fasa and Jahrom Universities during 2011-2013. The questionnaire used for collecting the data was that of the Association of Graduates from American Medical Colleges. The collected data were then analyzed using SPSS 14 through which such descriptive and bivariate statistics as percentage, means, Standard Deviation and ANOVA were used. The level of significance was set to 0.05.
resultsThe questionnaire return rate was 97%. As to the graduates' preclinical experiences, five indices were studied which were assessed as "average" in graduates' views. However, with respect to their clinical experiences five indices were equally studied, among which such indices as "Communication skills" and "The quality of medical apprenticeship" were evaluated as "desirable" in view of the graduates from the very three universities. On the contrary, the quality of clinical experiences and technological skills was evaluated as "almost weak"; furthermore, the integration of basic science with required clinical experience was also considered "weak".
conclusionIt seems essential to set up an annual assessment of general practitioner education program and a review of the medical education program in Iran based on the global medical advancement and international standards.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26269791PMC4530004What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.