ArticlePloS one2020
How curricular changes influence medical students' perceptions of basic science: A pilot study.
Article in PloS one, 2020. 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.
- Learning pathways composed of core subjects with features of reducing cognitive load have better learning outcomes.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2024Article
- Integration of Disability Awareness Improves Medical Students' Attitudes Toward People with Disabilities.Medical science educator · 2024Article
- Perspectives from two recent medical school graduates on exposure to pathology during undergraduate medical education: A narrative inquiry.Academic pathologyArticle
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
theoryThe perceived value of study material may have implications on learning and long-term retention. This study compares the perceived value of basic science of medical students from schools with a traditional "2+2" curriculum and the USMLE Step 1 placed before core clerkships to those from medical schools that have undergone curricular revisions, resulting in shortened pre-clerkship curricula and administration of the USMLE Step 1 after core clerkships. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesize that differences in curricula, particularly duration of pre-clerkship curriculum and timing of the USMLE Step 1, affect medical students' perceived value of basic science.
methodsA twenty item anonymous questionnaire using a 5-point Likert scale was developed to assess medical students' perceptions of basic science. The questionnaire was distributed to third-year medical students across four medical schools. Generalized linear models and p-values were calculated comparing the perceived value and use of basic science between medical schools with the USMLE Step 1 before clerkships and 2-years of basic science (BC) and medical schools with the USMLE Step 1 after core clerkships and 1.5-years of basic science (AC).
resultsThe questionnaire was distributed to 695 eligible students and completed by 287 students. Students at BC schools tended to view basic science as more essential for clinical practice than students at AC schools across both outcomes (rating independence of basic science and clinical practice, AC school mean = 2.97, BC school mean = 2.73, p = 0.0017; rating importance of basic science to clinical practice, AC school mean = 3.30, BC schools mean = 3.50, p = 0.0135).
conclusionsOur study suggests that students who have a longer basic science curriculum tend to value basic science greater than students with a shorter basic science curriculum. The timing of the USMLE Step 1 may also influence this relationship. Curricular decisions, such as reductions in pre-clerkship curricula and administration of the USMLE Step 1 after clerkships, may impact medical students' perceptions of the value of basic science to clinical practice. This can have implications on their future engagement with basic science and should be considered when modifying curriculum.
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.