ArticleSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2016
[Student assessments in palliative medicine as the cross-disciplinary subject 13: Survey of 34 medical faculties in Germany].
Article in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2009 palliative medicine was integrated into the undergraduate curriculum as cross-disciplinary subject 13 and is now part of mandatory education in German medical faculties (MF). Surveys across German MFs have shown an inhomogeneous development of this cross-disciplinary subject. The aim of this study was to assess the current state and the needs in terms of assessments in the cross-disciplinary subject 13 at German MFs. MATERIAL AND
methodsPalliative care coordinators at German MFs were surveyed by using a standardized telephone interview. Closed-ended questions were analyzed by descriptive analysis and open-ended questions by content analysis.
resultsA total of 34 out of 36 MFs participated. Multiple choice tests were the major form of assessment (94.1%) and 9 MFs planned to implement another form of assessment, mainly an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) station (55.5%). The majority of the MFs (91.2%) had no blueprint to develop assessments but conducted a review (78.8%) afterwards. A successful implementation of the assessment was mostly achieved when the concept of the assessment was felt to be suitable. The lack of human resources was found to be the most relevant obstacle for the implementation of a practical assessment format.
conclusionThe major form of assessment in palliative care is still a written examination, especially multiple choice tests. This format is considered to be of limited value for assessing communicative competencies and attitudes in palliative medical care. Further steps should include the development of a competence-based assessment that is also feasible for smaller MFs with limited resources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26391690What 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.