Advertisement

Medical Science Educator

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 2–9 | Cite as

The Effects of First Year Medical Students’ Gender and Career Interest on Educational Gains from Longitudinal Cases

  • Mark Sandefur
  • Jodi Blustin
  • Justin Juskewitch
  • Sara Aberle
  • Elizabeth Angstman
  • Paul Warner
  • Wojciech Pawlina
  • Joseph Grande
Original Research
  • 21 Downloads

Abstract

There is little research to date regarding the effectiveness of longitudinal case-based assignments in the education of first year medical students. Such assignments were recently added to the curriculum of the Anatomy and Pathology courses at Mayo Medical School in order to increase students’ understanding of the clinical relevance of information they learned in didactics. This study was designed to assess whether certain subpopulations of students achieved greater benefit from the use of these assignments. Longitudinal cases that focused on clinical aspects of disease (patient presentation, assessment, differential diagnosis, treatment options, and psychosocial issues) were assigned weekly during Anatomy and Pathology. Following these courses, students were surveyed regarding perceived benefit of the assignments in helping them to understand the didactic information they were learning from a clinical perspective. Survey responses and student assignment grades were analyzed based on groupings by career interest and gender. Survey response differences were striking when grouped by general career interests. Students undecided about their future career interests perceived significantly less benefit from the longitudinal assignments than their peers who were interested in a particular field of medicine in terms of gathering clinical information, developing diagnoses and treatment plans, integrating didactic information with clinical knowledge, and overall value of the assignments. Students with no specific career interest also had significantly lower assignment grades than those who had a specific field of interest. Survey responses did not differ significantly across gender. Comparison of students’ grades when grouped by gender demonstrated a trend toward significance, with females outperforming males on these assignments. In summary, students with no specified career preference perceived markedly less benefit and performed poorer on longitudinal case-based assignments than students with a specified career interest, while gender differences displayed no significant associations.

Keywords

Gender career interest longitudinal cases 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Glick TH, Moore GT. Time to learn: the outlook for renewal of patient-centered education in the digital age. Med Educ. 2001;35(5):505–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ludmerer KM. Redesigning residency education—moving beyond work hours. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362(14):1337–1338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Whang EE, Mello MM, Ashley SW, Zinner MJ. Implementing resident work hour limitations: lessons from the New York State experience. Ann Surg. 2003; 237(4):449–55.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sugand K, Abrahams P, Khurana A. The anatomy of anatomy: a review for its modernization. Anat Sci Educ. 2010; 3(2): 83–93.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grande JP. Training of physicians for the twenty-first century: role of the basic sciences. Med Teach. 2009; 31(9):802–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Seifan A, Kheck N, Shemer J. The case for subspecialty clinical learning in early medical education—moving from case-based to patient-based learning. Acad Med. 2008; 83(5):438–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fall LH, Berman NB, Smith S, White CB, Woodhead JC, Olson AL. Multi-institutional development and utilization of a computer-assisted learning program for the pediatrics clerkship: the CLIPP Project. Acad Med. 2005; 80(9):847–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Adams EC, Rodgers CJ, Harrington R, Young MD, Sieber VK. How we created virtual patient cases for primary care-based learning. Med Teach. 2011; 33(4):273–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huwendiek S, de Leng BA. Virtual patient design and curricular integration evaluation toolkit. Med Educ. 2010; 44(5):519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oliven A, Nave R, Gilad D, Barch A. Implementation of a web-based interactive virtual patient case simulation as a training and assessment tool for medical students. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2011; 169:233–7.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krupat E, Hiam CM, Fleming MZ, Freeman P. Patient-centeredness and its correlates among first year medical students. Int J Psychiatry Med. 1999; 29(3):347–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haidet P, Dains JE, Paterniti DA, Hechtel L, Chang T, Tseng E, Rogers JC. Medical student attitudes toward the doctor-patient relationship. Med Educ. 2002; 36(6):568–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Henbest RJ, Stewart M. Patient-centredness in the consultation. 2: Does it really make a difference? Fam Pract. 1990; 7(1):28–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stewart MA, McWhinney IR, Buck CW. The doctor/patient relationship and its effect upon outcome. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1979; 29:77–81.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sackett DL. Bias in analytic research. J Chron Dis. 1979; 32:51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Sandefur
    • 1
  • Jodi Blustin
    • 1
  • Justin Juskewitch
    • 1
  • Sara Aberle
    • 1
  • Elizabeth Angstman
    • 1
  • Paul Warner
    • 1
  • Wojciech Pawlina
    • 1
  • Joseph Grande
    • 1
  1. 1.Mayo ClinicRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations