Korean journal of medical education最新文献

Purpose: Residents' gender, residency level, and hospital types might influence their attitudes towards clinical supervision (CS); however, reports of its impact on cardiology residency are nonexistent. We explore the effect of gender, residency level, and hospital location's effect on Indonesian cardiology trainees' attitudes towards CS.

Methods: A multi-centered, cross-sectional study was conducted. We invited 490 Indonesian cardiology residents in September- October 2019 to complete the Cardiology CS Scale. Residents' attitudes, gender, university, and residency year were expressed using descriptive statistics. A Mann-Whitney test analyzed the gender and university location effect on residents' attitudes. Training year and university's impact were subjected to the Kruskal-Wallis test; a p-value of <0.05 reflected a significant result.

Results: A total of 388 residents agreed to participate (response rate=79.18%). Most of them were male (n=229 [59,02%]), attended universities in Java Island (n=262 [67,52%]), and were in their 2nd-3rd year of training (n=95 [24.48%], each). There were no significant differences in residents' attitudes between genders (U [Nmale=229, Nfemale=159]=17,908.50, z=-0.27, p=0.78). Generally, their attitudes were significantly affected by the university (H(7)=47.38, p<0.01). However, the university location (located in Java Island or outside Java Island) does not affect residents' attitude towards CS (U [NJava=262, Nnon-Java=126]=15,237.00, z=-1.23, p=0.22). In addition, the residents' training year also affected the residents' response (H(2)=14.278, p<0.01).

Conclusion: Cardiology residents' attitudes towards CS are significantly influenced by training year and university but not gender or university location. The results might provide insightful information for further improvement of CS in cardiology training and guide further evaluation.

Purpose: The practice of feedback is influenced by the characteristics of students, teachers, and the clinical environment. Most studies on feedback have been conducted in Western settings with different sociocultural backgrounds to Indonesia. This study explores feedback in Indonesian clinical clerkship using a sociocultural lens and aims to provide an exemplar of adaptive practice relevant to non-Western settings.

Methods: This qualitative study was conducted using an interpretive phenomenology approach. Data were collected through focus groups with students and teachers and interviews with program coordinators. Data were transcribed verbatim and grouped according to data sources, coded, and analyzed thematically.

Results: Themes identified from the focus group discussions and interviews were categorized as student, teacher, and environmental factors. Student factors include dependence on feedback, tendencies to use a group approach, difficulties recognizing social rules, a perceived lack of resilience, and tendencies to doubt praise. Factors related to teachers include a high level of expertise, being extremely busy, having a strong commitment, and being unsure of students' acceptance of feedback. Clinical environment factors influence interactions between teachers and learners and include high power distance and collectivistic values. A safe environment is needed to ensure effective feedback interactions.

Conclusion: High power distance, collectivism, and generational characteristics of students likely impact feedback practice in clinical settings. Designing a safe environment is essential for effective feedback practice.

Purpose: This study aims to establish if medical students think it is fair to be assessed by nursing professors in interprofessional education (IPE) and why.

Methods: Eighty-seven third-year medical students who participated in the IPE in 2022 submitted self-reflection essays. They were asked how they perceived the assessors, and 86 medical students responded to content analyses.

Results: Sixty-seven students (77.9%) agreed to be assessed by nursing professors. They believed that interprofessional assessment is possible because it is an IPE. They also believed that this was an opportunity to be assessed from various perspectives. Nineteen students (22.1%) objected because the assessment criteria may be different and nursing professors would not understand the learning experiences of medical students.

Conclusion: Regarding the reasons medical students oppose it, IPE developers should supplement the development of assessment criteria and understand learners' experiences during planning assessment.