ArticleBMC medical education2025
Evaluation of undergraduate forensic medicine education in Nepal: a critical analysis using Schwab's five commonplaces and Schubert's curriculum images.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Presence and Nature of AI-Use Disclosure Statements in Medical Education Journals: A Bibliometric Study.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Article
- Enhancing medical education in Nepal through problem-based learning (PBL) and collaborative action research strategies.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Psychometric Evaluation of Forensic Medicine Multiple-Choice Questions: An Item Analysis From a Nepali Medical College.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Following the establishment of Nepal's first medical college in 1972, forensic medicine was introduced in 1978. To date, 25 medical colleges in the country have included forensic medicine as a compulsory subject in the undergraduate medical curriculum. Although this subject has been introduced into the medical curriculum, the outcome is unsatisfactory, as reflected by the poor medico-legal reports prepared by newly graduated medical students. Forensic medicine education is therefore at a critical juncture with challenges while paving the way for opportunities to improve. In this analysis, we examined the current state of forensic medicine education for the undergraduate medical programme in the country. For this purpose, we used Schwab's five commonplaces in the curriculum. We then evaluated the curriculum from the perspective of Schubert's curricular image frameworks.We noted significant differences in the curriculum content, teaching methods, and practical training across the curriculum. An acute shortage of qualified teachers, limited resources, and inconsistent curriculum updates have further complicated the situation. The current curriculum does not address cultural sensitivity, which should not be overlooked during medico-legal practices.Following the curriculum evaluation, we find room for improvement and propose recommendations. First, the forensic medicine curriculum should be standardized and uniform to address national needs. There should be uniformity and improvement in practical hands-on training. The manpower should be trained to work in rural settings with limited resources so that the overall justice system of the country can improve. Recent technological advances should be incorporated into the curriculum and interdisciplinary collaboration encouraged. Allocating more scholarship/sponsorship seats for postgraduate programmes and recruiting skilled graduates to be evenly distributed regionally would be important steps toward strengthening the country's medico-legal proceedings and justice system.
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.