ArticleSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2022
[The cross-sectional field "pain medicine" in medical studies at the University of Leipzig-What has been achieved? : An analysis of self-estimation of students before, during and 5 years after establishment of the cross-sectional field].
Article in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe field of pain medicine was established as an obligatory subject area of medical schools in Germany in 2016. No prior study has evaluated the effects of this curricular change on students' competences in the field of pain medicine.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to find out to what extent the introduction of the additional subject "pain medicine" positively influenced the students' acquisition of competences measured via a self-assessment. MATERIAL AND
methodsA longitudinal and interdisciplinary curriculum for pain medicine was developed according to the current recommendations for curriculum development for medical education. In parallel, a questionnaire was created for the students' self-assessment of their own level of knowledge and the importance of pain medicine teaching content on a 5-stage Likert scale. The surveys were conducted before the implementation of the curriculum (2014), directly after the first cohort finished (2016) and 5 years after the implementation (2019) and compared by Kruskal-Wallis test.
resultsThe implementation of the curriculum has led to significant improvement in relevant aspects. For example, students now feel better prepared overall for the treatment of pain patients (2.67 in 2014 vs. 3.18 in 2019). Individual sub-aspects such as taking a pain history (3.63 vs. 4.10) or drawing up an analgesia scheme (3.56 vs. 4.14) are now also subjectively better mastered.
conclusionEven though the results are encouraging, there is further potential for improvement in some sub-areas. For example, the students' rating regarding the question about their preparation for treating patients in pain is not yet satisfactory. Therefore, the curriculum should be developed further with a focus on competence orientation. Digital teaching formats can be integrated as well as interprofessional units and simulated patients. Additionally, the examination formats should be further developed towards standardized practical examinations.
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.