TOPICS IN MEDICAL EDUCATION ELECTIVE BLOCK: A STUDY USING DELPHI METHOD

Geraldo Geraldo, E. Rukmini
{"title":"TOPICS IN MEDICAL EDUCATION ELECTIVE BLOCK: A STUDY USING DELPHI METHOD","authors":"Geraldo Geraldo, E. Rukmini","doi":"10.22146/jpki.46608","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Problematic practices performed by doctors and clinical phase students often be found in the workplace settings. Common problems related to team working is the highest rated problems. To overcome this problem, we designed an elective course, Medical Education block (ME) and have implemented the course since 2014. This study aimed to find topics in ME which were meaningful toward medical student’s practices. Methods: A Delphi method were utilized. The experts were the subjects themselves to acknowledge that they were the participants of the ME block, other elective blocks, and clerkship. There were 21 respondents consisted of 2012, 2013 and 2014 bathces. All the subjects were in their clerkship or at the end of their education. They were divided into two groups: who enrolled in ME (n=10), and other blocks (n=11). The questionnaire was consisted of three parts. The first part listed 5 main topics with responses of agree/disagree. The second part listed the same topics, but subjects needed to response the weight on each topic. The last part listed 27 topics in ME Block that might or might not relate to clerkship. Responses were given in agree/disagree. Results: Using two-rounded Delphi method, we found the average of rate of agreement (roa) on the first round was 88% and the second was 81%. There were only 2 statements of the second part which had roa >70%. Thus, the second part went to the 2nd round together with the 3 statements of the third parts. Finally, there were only 2 statements of the second parts achieved roa and there were 2 topics left undecided of the third part. Conclusion: Few topics which were proven useful for medical students were personal education, medical education research, and professionalism. Keywords: practices, medical education, elective course","PeriodicalId":17805,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Pendidikan Kedokteran Indonesia: The Indonesian Journal of Medical Education","volume":"54 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Pendidikan Kedokteran Indonesia: The Indonesian Journal of Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22146/jpki.46608","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Problematic practices performed by doctors and clinical phase students often be found in the workplace settings. Common problems related to team working is the highest rated problems. To overcome this problem, we designed an elective course, Medical Education block (ME) and have implemented the course since 2014. This study aimed to find topics in ME which were meaningful toward medical student’s practices. Methods: A Delphi method were utilized. The experts were the subjects themselves to acknowledge that they were the participants of the ME block, other elective blocks, and clerkship. There were 21 respondents consisted of 2012, 2013 and 2014 bathces. All the subjects were in their clerkship or at the end of their education. They were divided into two groups: who enrolled in ME (n=10), and other blocks (n=11). The questionnaire was consisted of three parts. The first part listed 5 main topics with responses of agree/disagree. The second part listed the same topics, but subjects needed to response the weight on each topic. The last part listed 27 topics in ME Block that might or might not relate to clerkship. Responses were given in agree/disagree. Results: Using two-rounded Delphi method, we found the average of rate of agreement (roa) on the first round was 88% and the second was 81%. There were only 2 statements of the second part which had roa >70%. Thus, the second part went to the 2nd round together with the 3 statements of the third parts. Finally, there were only 2 statements of the second parts achieved roa and there were 2 topics left undecided of the third part. Conclusion: Few topics which were proven useful for medical students were personal education, medical education research, and professionalism. Keywords: practices, medical education, elective course
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
运用德尔菲法研究医学教育选修课主题
背景:医生和临床阶段的学生经常在工作场所发现有问题的做法。与团队工作相关的常见问题是排名最高的问题。为了解决这一问题,我们设计了一门选修课程——医学教育模块(ME),并于2014年开始实施。本研究旨在寻找对医学生实践有意义的ME主题。方法:采用德尔菲法。专家本身就是受试者,他们承认自己是ME模块、其他选修模块和职员模块的参与者。共有21名受访者,分别来自2012年、2013年和2014年。所有的受试者都是在他们的职员或在他们的教育结束。他们被分为两组:参加ME组(n=10)和其他组(n=11)。问卷由三部分组成。第一部分列出了5个主要话题,并给出了同意/不同意的回答。第二部分列出了相同的主题,但受试者需要回答每个主题的权重。最后一部分列出了ME Block中27个主题,这些主题可能与书记员有关,也可能与之无关。回答是同意/不同意。结果:采用两轮德尔菲法,第一轮的平均符合率(roa)为88%,第二轮为81%。第二部分只有2个语句的roa >70%。因此,第二部分与第三部分的3个陈述一起进入了第二轮。最后,第二部分只有2个陈述达到了roa,第三部分有2个主题未确定。结论:医学生的个人教育、医学教育研究和专业素养等课题被证明是有用的。关键词:实习,医学教育,选修课
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Inquiry Learning Methods to Increase Student Motivation and Learning Outcomes The Noteworthiness of Constructive Feedback and Student-Reflection to Approach Competence-Based Curriculum: An Explanatory Study of Medical Schools in Indonesia The Relationship Between Anatomy Identification Test Scores and The Suitability in V/A/R/K Modality Usage Between Study Habit and Learning Style COMPARISON OF HISTOLOGY PRACTICUM EXAM RESULTS BASED ON THE LEARNING STYLE OF MEDICAL STUDENTS Description of The Professional Identity of First-Level Clinical Medical Students and The Various Factors That Facilitate Its Formation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1