Comparing different methods of learning in the development of social accountability and CanMEDS roles in medical students
Main Article Content
Abstract
Abstract
Objective: Medical students at the University of British Columbia undertake a population health course that aims to cultivate social accountability and CanMEDS roles. Students choose between Discussion Group Option (DGO), Community Service Learning Option (CSLO), or Self-Directed Project Option (SDPO). The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of these three different learning options in developing social accountability and CanMEDS roles in medical students.
Methods: Expert consultation and literature review were undertaken to develop a self-report survey. Students who had completed the course from 2009 to 2013 were surveyed. The results were analyzed to evaluate differences between groups.
Results: We recruited 168 participants with equal representation from each option. CSLO and SDPO students reported greater development of social accountability and CanMEDS roles from the course compared to DGO students. In addition, CSLO and SDPO students reported greater academic output and satisfaction from their experience.
Conclusion: Students who participated in community-based or project-based learning reported significantly better acquisition of social accountability and CanMEDS roles compared to students who engaged in group discussion.
Résumé
Objectif: Les étudiants en médecine de l’Université de la Colombie-Britannique suivent un cours sur la santé de la population qui vise à cultiver la responsabilité sociale et les rôles CanMEDS. Les étudiants choisissent entre l’option de discussion de groupe (DGO, de l’anglais), l’option d’apprentissage par l’engagement communautaire (CSLO, de l’anglais) ou l’option de projet autonome (SDPO, de l’anglais). L’objectif de cette étude était d’évaluer l’efficacité de ces trois options d’apprentissage différentes pour le développement de la responsabilité sociale et des rôles CanMEDS chez les étudiants en médecine.
Méthodes: Des consultations d’experts et une revue de la littérature ont été entreprises afin de concevoir un sondage d’autodéclaration. Les étudiants ayant complété le cours de 2009 à 2013 ont été interrogés. Les résultats ont été analysés afin d’évaluer les différences entre les groupes.
Résultats: Nous avons recruté 168 participants, avec une représentation égale pour chaque option. Les étudiants des groupes CSLO et SDPO ont déclaré plus de développement de leur sens de responsabilité sociale et des rôles CanMEDS à la suite du cours, en comparaison aux étudiants du groupe DGO. De plus, les étudiants des groupes CSLO et SDPO ont rapporté un plus grand nombre de réalisations scolaires et une meilleure satisfaction par rapport à leur expérience.
Conclusion: Les étudiants qui ont participé à l’apprentissage par l’engagement communautaire ou par l’entremise d’un projet autonome ont rapporté une acquisition nettement meilleure de la responsabilité sociale et des rôles CanMEDS, en comparaison aux étudiants qui ont participé à une discussion de groupe.
Article Details
- Authors publishing in the UOJM retain copyright of their articles, including all the drafts and the final published version in the journal.
- While UOJM does not retain any rights to the articles submitted, by agreeing to publish in UOJM, authors are granting the journal right of first publication and distribution rights of their articles.
- Authors are free to submit their works to other publications, including journals, institutional repositories or books, with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in UOJM.
- Copies of UOJM are distributed both in print and online, and all materials will be publicly available online. The journal holds no legal responsibility as to how these materials will be used by the public.
- Please ensure that all authors, co-authors and investigators have read and agree to these terms.
- Works are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
2. Medical Council of Canada. Objectives for the qualifying examination [Inter- net]. 2015 [cited 2015 Mar 23]. Available from: http://apps.mcc.ca/Objec- tives_Online/objectives.pl?loc=home&lang=english.
3. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. The CanMEDS Frame- work [Internet]. 2005 [cited 2015 Mar 23]. Available from: http://www.royalcollege.ca/portal/page/portal/rc/canmeds/framework.
4. Kharb P, Samanta PP, Jindal M, et al. The learning styles and the preferred teaching-learning strategies of first year medical students. J Clin Diagn Res. 2013;7(6):1089-92.
5. Kusurkar R, Croiset G. Autonomy support for autonomous motivation in medical education. Med Educ Online. 2015;20:27951.
6. Ten Cate T, Kusurkar R, Williams G. How self-determination theory can assist our understanding of the teaching and learning processes in medical educa- tion. Med Teach. 2011;33(12):961-73.
7. Williams G, Saizow R, Ryan R. The importance of self-determination theory for medical education. Acad Med. 1999;74(9):992-5.
8. Crabtree A, Mercer G, Horan R, et al. A qualitative study of the perceived effects of blue lights in washrooms on people who use injection drugs. Harm Reduct J. 2013;10(1):22.
9. Boelen C, Heck J. Defining and Measuring the Social Accountability of Medical Schools [Internet]. 1995 [cited 2015 Mar 23]. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/59441/1/WHO_HRH_95.7.pdf?ua=1.
10. The University of British Columbia. Doctor, Patient, & Society Community Advisory Board [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 Mar 23]. Available from: http:// sace.med.ubc.ca/education/dpas-cab/.
11. Leinster S. Evaluation and assessment of social accountability in medical schools. Med Teach. 2011;33(8):673-6.
12. Cohen JJ. Professionalism in medical education, an American perspective: From evidence to accountability. Med Educ. 2006;40(7):607-17.
13. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. CanMEDS 2015: Understanding the realities of today’s physician [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 Mar 23]. Available from: http://www.royalcollege.ca/portal/page/portal/rc/canmeds/canmeds2015.
14. Crandall SJ, Volk RJ, Loemker V. Medical students’ attitudes toward providing care for the underserved. Are we training socially responsible physicians? JAMA. 1993;269(19):2519-23.
15. Santina M, Perez J. Health professionals’ sex and attitudes of health science students to health claims. Med Educ. 2003;37(6):509-13.
16. Hren D, Lukic IK, Marusic A, et al. Teaching research methodology in medical schools: Students’ attitudes towards and knowledge about science. Med Educ. 2004;38(1):81-6.
17. O’Toole TP, Kathuria N, Mishra M, et al. Teaching professionalism within a community context: Perspectives from a national demonstration project. Acad Med. 2005;80(4):339-43.
18. Hojat M, Mangione S, Nasca TJ, et al. An empirical study of decline in empathy in medical school. Med Educ. 2005;38(9):934-41.
19. Hunt JB, Bonham C, Jones L. Understanding the goals of service learning and community-based medical education: A systematic review. Acad Med. 2011;86(2):246-51.
20. Fernando E, Jusko-Friedman A, Catton P, et al. Celebrating 10 years of undergraduate medical education: A student-centered evaluation of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre—Determinants of Community Health year 2 program. J Cancer Educ. 2014;30(2):225-30.
21. Lloyd T, Phillips BR, Aber RC. Factors that influence doctors’ participation in clinical research. Med Educ. 2004;38(8):848-51.
22. Solomon SS, Tom SC, Pichert J, et al. Impact of medical student research in the development of physician-scientists. J Investig Med. 2003;51(3):149-56. 23. Zier K, Friedman E, Smith L. Supportive programs increase medical students’ research interest and productivity. J Investig Med. 2006;54(4):201-7. 24. Davidson RA. Community-based education and problem solving: The community health scholars program at the University of Florida. Teach Learn
Med. 2002;14(3):178-81.
25. Ryser L, Crain J, Curry R, et al. The Northern Medical Program – Preliminary impacts on the physician community in Prince George [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2015 Mar 23]. Available from: http://www.unbc.ca/assets/community_development_institute/research/microsoft_word_nmp_final_report_ final.pdf.
26. Stearns JA, Stearns MA, Glasser M, et al. 2000. Illinois RMED: A comprehensive program to improve the supply of rural family physicians. Fam Med. 2000;32(1):17-21.
27. Wolff M, Young S, Maurana C. A senior elective: Promoting health in under-served communities. Fam Med. 2001;33(10):732-33.
28. Junge B, Quinones C, Kakietek J, et al. Promoting undergraduate interest, preparedness, and professional pursuit in the sciences: An outcomes evaluation of the SURE program at Emory University. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2010;9(2):119-32.
29. Buxton JA, McIntyre CC, Tu AW, et al. Who knows more about immunization: A survey of public health nurses and physicians? Can Fam Physician. 2013;59(11):e514-21
30. Pielak KL, McIntyre CC, Tu AW, et al. Identifying attitudes, beliefs and reported practices of nurses and doctors as immunization providers. J Adv Nurs. 2010;66(7):1602-11.