ArticleJournal of advances in medical education & professionalism2024
A four-Axis-Method to Evaluate a Part of an Undergraduate Medical Students' Curriculum.
Article in Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism, 2024. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The evaluation of programs in faculties of medicine enables them to adequately reach their mission objectives, and social responsibilities and to correct their potential lacune. Few publications have described the process of internal evaluation of a program performed by the organizational members. The authors aimed to describe a practical method called the four-axis method to assess curriculum using a practical example. Methods: The authors performed a descriptive study, highlighting the application of a particular method of evaluation of a program called the four-axis method. It consisted of the assessment of the pedagogical alignment [1], teaching techniques and evaluation tests [2], students' viewpoints and needs [3], and the teachers' opinions and needs [4]. To contextualize this method, the authors described a practical experience of the assessment of a multidisciplinary theme (theme 16), which is taught during the second year of medical education. Was performed the evaluation from January 2020 to January 2021. The population studied consisted of the tutors implicated in the teaching of the theme and the students in the second year of medical education who accepted to answer the satisfaction questionnaires. The students and tutors who did not fill out the questionnaires were excluded. No statistical tests were needed because of the descriptive nature of the study. Results: The most relevant results highlighted that 48.4% of the teachers did not systematically use bioclinical cases involving interactions between students; also, 42.4% of the students believed that the teaching sessions didn't introduce practical examples giving rise to interactions between them. Therefore, the 4-axis-based analysis indicated that weaknesses were mostly attributed to the lack of homogeneity in the teaching methods and techniques which showed the teachers' difficulties in integrating clinical data into their teaching so that they can help the students to assimilate the fundamental data. Conclusion: The authors' used a particular approach since it focused both on an objective evaluation of the teaching methods and the evaluation tests and the students' and teachers' viewpoints and needs. The major limitation of this approach was the fact that it could not integrate the educational environment that could impact the students' performances.
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.