Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37038175›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2023

Evaluating a novel intervention in undergraduate medicine: an MBBS Curriculum Map.

Katie Wardle, Rima Chakrabarti, Tor Wright, Taylor Bennie, Daniel Ntuiabane, Faye Gishen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Katie WardleUniversity College London, London, UK. k.wardle@ucl.ac.uk.
Rima ChakrabartiUniversity College London, London, UK.
Tor WrightUniversity College London, London, UK.
Taylor BennieUniversity College London, London, UK.
Daniel NtuiabaneNorthern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, Greater Manchester, UK.
Faye GishenUniversity College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFollowing student feedback, a Curriculum Map (CM) was commissioned in 2018 at UCL Medical School (UCLMS). After exploring key requirements of a CM, the second phase focused on building a prototype before its launch. This study evaluates this novel pedagogical intervention following its implementation, from the perspective of its primary users, UCL medical students.

methodsThis multi-method study was conducted two months after the CM's launch in 2019. Quantitative and qualitative data was gathered via a survey and focus groups across four domains: usefulness, satisfaction, appearance, and content. Reflective Thematic Analysis was used to analyse the qualitative data to build themes.

resultsOne hundred ninety five participants (195/1347, 14%) responded to the survey and two focus groups were held. Higher rates of satisfaction were seen among later years compared to early years students. Five key themes emerged on the CM as a: UCLMS textbook; learning aid for assessments; tool for capturing scientific content; modern learning technology and tool for 'levelling the playing field'. Key findings suggest that while students welcomed a centralised resource to create transparency, there were clear differences between early and later years students, with the former preferring a more prescriptive approach. Learning was assessment-driven across all years and students highlighted their desire for greater clarity on the importance of curricular content for summative assessments.

conclusionA CM provides a benchmark for medical educators on the undergraduate curriculum, which must be balanced with its limitations; a CM cannot provide an exhaustive syllabus and needs to be supplemented with self-directed learning and clinical preparation for practice.

Indexed as

Education, Medical, UndergraduateMedicineStudents, MedicalCurriculumFocus GroupsHumansLearningCurriculum DevelopmentCurriculum EvaluationDigital LearningElectronic Curriculum

Identifiers

PMID37038175
PMCPMC10088241

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.