ArticleMedical science educator2025
Programme Evaluation of Electives in the New CBME Curriculum in Indian Medical Education.
Article in Medical science educator, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Electives have been one of the milestones to be achieved after the commencement of Competency-Based Medical Education (CBME) curriculum where the 2019 batch of undergraduate students was scheduled for their Elective postings after the completion of examination of MBBS Phase III, Part I and before starting Phase III, Part II. This study was planned to evaluate the effectiveness of the Elective programme in the CBME Curriculum in Indian Medical Education. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted at Vardhman Mahavir Medical College & Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India, from February 2023 to July 2023. A multi-level approach was used for assessing the programme effectiveness following Kirkpatrick's model. The first level was the immediate reaction of participants at the end of the Electives that was evaluated by a feedback proforma. The second was to observe the extent of learning, assessed through either pre-test or post-tests or OSPE/OSCE by the individual departments. The third level pertained to documenting transfer of acquired knowledge to the students via structured proforma. The fourth level determines the impact of the programme on the institution's goals which was not undertaken in the present study. Result: Quantitative analysis of the questionnaires to evaluate the reaction and behaviour of students showed that the Electives significantly improved the students' satisfaction with this curriculum pathway in terms of content, resources, and soft skills acquired. Maximum Satisfaction index for responses to reaction (level 1) was 82.6 for the item stating motivation of students to pursue continuous learning. However, for evaluation of behaviour (level 3), Maximum Satisfaction index was 88.8, for the item indicating how well the knowledge and skills learnt in the elective postings have been put into effect. Qualitative analysis of questionnaires revealed that students considered Electives as being innovative, interesting, and a highly regarded experience that helped them to customise their learning experiences and explore the areas of interest in medical education. Conclusion: Electives introduced in the CBME curriculum were generally well-received by students. The ability to choose from a range of specialised topics allowed students to explore their interests, deepen their knowledge, and develop specific skills in their desired areas of focus. Overall, it is concluded that the Elective programme was successful as measured at Kirkpatrick levels 1, 2, and 3. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-025-02314-x.
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.