ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2024
Patients' & students' perspectives on bedside teaching: A descriptive study.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 2024. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the student's and patients' perspectives about bedside teaching and to identify possible barriers that delay effective bedside teaching. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted at two teaching hospitals in Peshawar with 153 participants through non-probability serial sampling from December 2017 to March 2018. Interview-based validated questionnaires were used and pilot tested as well. Ethical approval was taken with the participant's consent. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 19.0 using descriptive statistics. Results: Among the total 79 students, all of them completed the questionnaires with a 100% response rate. However, from the 76 patients only 74 responded with a response rate of 97%. The majority of the patients (n=58; 78%) were satisfied with bedside teaching with no problems faced. During the bedside teaching only (n= 13; 18.2%) felt anxious while others, enjoyed (n= 59; 80.5%) with satisfaction and only 13% (n= 10) thought their privacy was breached. The satisfied students with the time spent on bedside teaching were (n= 52; 65.5%) while (n= 30; 38.7%) thought thirty minutes time was not enough. The hurdles faced were lack of practice (37.3%), fear of embarrassment in front of peers (21.3%), and lack of confidence to approach the patient (16%). Conclusion: The patients showed positive attitude and enjoyed bedside teaching. The students preferred it as a valuable tool for clinical experience. However, time constraints, lack of practice, lack of confidence, confidentiality, and anxiety must be overcome to make bedside teaching a useful method. Effective teaching still requires good teaching methodologies with confidence and competency.
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.