ArticleBMC medical education2023
Challenges to acquire similar learning outcomes across four parallel thematic learning communities in a medical undergraduate curriculum.
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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo train physicians who are able to meet the evolving requirements from health care, the University of Groningen Medical Center adopted in 2014 a new curriculum named G2020. This curriculum combines thematic learning communities with competency-based medical education and Problem-based learning. In the learning community program, different learning tasks were used to train general competencies. The challenge of this program was whether students acquire similar levels of learning outcomes within the different variations of the program.
methodWe used the assessment results of three cohorts for the first two bachelor years. We used progress tests and written tests to analyze knowledge development, and the assessment results of seven competencies to analyze competence development. Concerning knowledge, we used the cumulative deviation method to compare progress tests and used the Kruskal-Wallis H test to compare written test scores between programs. Descriptive statistics are used to present all assessments of the students' competencies.
resultsWe observed similarly high passing rates both for competency and knowledge assessments in all programs. However, we did observe some differences. The two programs that focused more on competencies development underperformed the other two programs on knowledge assessment but outperformed on competencies assessment.
conclusionThis study indicates that it is possible to train students in different learning programs within one curriculum while having similar learning outcomes. There are however some differences in obtained levels between the different programs. The new curriculum still needs to improve by balancing variations in the programs and comparability of assessments across the programs.
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.