Evaluating the teaching of clinical preventive medicine: a multidimensional approach.
Evaluating the teaching of clinical preventive medicine: a multidimensional approach.
复制标题
评估临床预防医学的教学：多维方法。
DOI：
10.1016/s0749-3797(00)00311-1
复制
发表时间：
2001
影响因子：
5.5
通讯作者：
Tran,K
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Dickey,LL;Tran,K
本研究旨在确定1996-1997学年加州大学旧金山分校（UCSF）医学院课程中临床预防医学主题教学的数量、方法和适当性。方法制定35个临床预防医学课题的方案。临床前（1年级和2年级）课程通过审查所有教学大纲和其他印刷材料来评估特定临床预防医学主题的存在和教学数量。临床课程（3年级和4年级）通过要求学生在完成8个临床实习后回答一份问卷来评估。见习董事也被要求回答同样的问卷。结果临床基础课程中，临床预防医学学科总学时为63.3学时，占总学时的4.2%。咨询和筛查主题获得的时间最多（分别为31.3和20.5小时），免疫/预防和产前护理获得的时间明显较少（分别为4.0和2.4小时）。在临床课程中，学生报告平均接受了118.5小时的预防医学教学（占总教学时数的5.9%）。见习主任报告的教学时间（330.8小时）是学生的两倍多。总的来说，只有50%的学生报告说，当见习主任报告说某个主题已经被见习过时，见习主任就会报告这个主题已经被见习过。学生和实习主任都报告说，接触临床预防医学主题通常是不足的。结论在加州大学旧金山分校临床基础和临床课程中，临床预防医学教学占总教学时间的比例相对较小。有些主题在课程中只涵盖了最低限度的内容，并且在临床年期间的教学在学生和见习人员之间是可变的。在临床预防医学教学中，学生和教师报告的教学量的差异说明了使用多种方法（包括学生输入）来评估课程内容的重要性。
BackgroundA study was undertaken to determine the amount, methods, and adequacy of instruction in clinical preventive medicine topics in the medical school curriculum at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) in the 1996–1997 academic year.MethodsA protocol of 35 clinical preventive medicine topics was developed. The preclinical (Years 1 and 2) curriculum was evaluated by reviewing all syllabi and other printed materials for the presence and quantity of instruction in the specific clinical preventive medicine topics. The clinical curriculum (Years 3 and 4) was evaluated by asking students on completion of eight clinical clerkships to answer a questionnaire. Clerkship directors were also asked to answer the same questionnaire.ResultsIn the preclinical curriculum, clinical preventive medicine topics were found to receive 63.3 hours of instruction (4.2% of total instruction hours). Counseling and screening topics received the most hours (31.3 and 20.5, respectively) with immunization/prophylaxis and prenatal care receiving considerably less (4.0 and 2.4 hours, respectively). In the clinical curriculum, students reported receiving an average of 118.5 hours of instruction in preventive medicine (5.9% of total instruction hours). Clerkship directors reported more than twice as many hours of instruction (330.8) as students. Overall, only 50% of students reported that a topic had been covered in a clerkship when the clerkship director reported that it had been covered. Both students and clerkship directors reported that exposure to clinical preventive medicine topics was in general inadequate.ConclusionsInstruction in clinical preventive medicine constituted a relatively modest percentage of the total instruction time in both the preclinical and clinical curriculums at UCSF. Some topics were only minimally covered in the curriculum, and instruction during the clinical years was variable across students and clerkships. The disparity in the amount of instruction in clinical preventive medicine reported by students and faculty illustrates the importance of using multiple methods, including student input, to evaluate curriculum content.