ArticleBMC medical education2019
Evaluation of the undergraduate family medicine programme of Faculty of Medicine, University of Kelaniya: quantitative and qualitative student feedback.
Article in BMC medical education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Family Medicine Practice as Learning Environment: A Medical Student Evaluation in Switzerland.Advances in medical education and practice · 2024Article
- Developing an evaluation approach for the in-depth review of a new undergraduate medical programme as a complex system.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWorldwide there is an increasing emphasis on the importance of primary care. The ministry of health Sri Lanka issued a directive in 2016 that training of doctors in primary care should be strengthened. Medical students of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Kelaniya follow a 1 month long clinical appointment in family medicine in their fourth year of study.
methodsFeedback is taken from students on completion of the appointment. Half the students from each group complete a pre tested structured feedback questionnaire that consists of answers to questions based on a likert scale with a space for free comments. The other half provide qualitative feedback. In this evaluation data were gathered from 185 (98%) students from all eight clinical groups throughout the year 2016. Quantitative data were analysed using SPSS version 22. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyse the qualitative data from the Round Robin activity and free comments from the questionnaire.
resultsThe qualitative feedback provided a richer indepth overview of student ideas on the appointment compared to the quantitative data. In reflection of a desire for learning to be of relevance students wanted clinically oriented teaching focused on management. They preferred active teaching learning methods such as the opportunity to conduct consultations and receive immediate feedback. Students had a high regard for the teaching sessions by general practitioners at their clinics. The appointment had created an interest in the discipline of family medicine which could have an impact on future choice of career. There were indications to suggest that student attitudes towards patients may have evolved to be more patient centred. Students appreciated the inclusive and low stress ambience of the learning environment. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Regular evaluation of teaching programmes helps maintain accountability of faculty and paves the way for more student centred teaching through the incorporation of students' views in devising teaching methods. This evaluation found that qualitative feedback provided more descriptive material to reflect on and therefore improve teaching on the programme. It is recommended that more use should be made of qualitative methodologies in programme evaluations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.