• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medical Education >Cross-sectional comparison of spiral versus block integrated curriculums in preparing medical students to diagnose and manage concussions
【24h】

Cross-sectional comparison of spiral versus block integrated curriculums in preparing medical students to diagnose and manage concussions

机译：螺旋和块状综合课程在医学生诊断和管理脑震荡方面的横断面比较

获取原文
       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

An integrated curriculum is designed to be repetitive yet progressive and the concept has rapidly established itself within medical education. National organizations have recommended a shift to a spiral curriculum design, which uses both vertical and horizontal integration. This study examined differences between the recently implemented integrated spiral (class of 2019) and conventional block (classes of 2016–2018) MD curricula at the University of British Columbia (UBC) with respect to knowledge of concussion. Cross-sectional online survey (FluidSurveys: Fluidware, Ottawa, ON), distributed via email to UBC medical students during the 2015–2016 academic year. Questions focused on demographic data, knowledge of concussion definition, and management considerations. Differences in responses across the two groups were assessed using chi-square tests. Ordinal Likert-scale data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U-Tests. Statistical significance was determined a priori at p??0.05. One hundred forty eight medical students (57% female) responded with 78 students in the spiral curriculum and 70 students the block curriculum. Important differences between responses from spiral versus block curricula students included: formal exposure to concussion-related educational material (10.8?h spiral vs. 3.95?h block), understanding concussions can occur without direct head impacts (90% spiral vs. 70% block, X21,148?=?9.41, p?=?0.002) and identifying long-term consequences (dementia: 90% spiral vs. 66% block, X21,148?=?12.57, p??0.0001; second impact syndrome: 80% spiral vs. 57% block, X21,148?=?8.60, p?=?0.003; Parkinsonism: 47% spiral vs. 17% block, X21,148?=?14.87, p??0.001). Block students identified the need for a full neurological exam (X21,148?=?17.63, p??0.001) and had greater clinical exposure to acute concussion (47% block vs. 14% spiral, X21,148?=?19.27, p??0.001) and post-concussion syndrome (37% block vs. 19% spiral, X21,148?=?5.91, p?=?0.015). The findings from this preliminary study suggest the spiral curriculum design, which emphasizes and revisits clinical competencies, promotes a strong understanding and retention of knowledge in highly prevalent clinical conditions such as concussion.
机译：综合课程的设计是重复性的但又是渐进的，这一概念已在医学教育中迅速确立。国家组织建议向螺旋课程设计过渡，该设计同时使用垂直和水平整合。这项研究检查了不列颠哥伦比亚大学（UBC）最近实施的综合螺旋（2019班）和常规区块（2016-2018班）医学博士课程在脑震荡知识方面的差异。在线横截面调查（FluidSurveys：Fluidware，渥太华，安大略）在2015–2016学年期间通过电子邮件分发给UBC医学生。问题集中于人口统计数据，脑震荡定义知识和管理注意事项。使用卡方检验评估两组反应的差异。使用Mann-Whitney U检验分析了顺序李克特量表数据。先验确定统计学显着性，p ＜0.05。 148名医学生（57％的女性）在螺旋课程中有78名学生，在整体课程中有70名学生。螺旋课程与封闭课程的学生之间的重要区别包括：正式接触脑震荡相关的教学材料（10.8？h螺旋与3.95？h阻挡），理解脑震荡不会直接影响头部（90％螺旋与70％阻挡） ，X21,148？=？9.41，p？=？0.002）并确定长期后果（痴呆：90％螺旋与66％阻滞，X21,148？=？12.57，p？<？0.0001;第二冲击综合征：80％螺旋比57％的阻滞，X 21，148 ＝＝ 8.60，p ＝ 0.003;帕金森症：47％螺旋比17％的阻滞，X 21，148 ＝ 14.87，p ＜＜ 0.001。障碍学生确定需要进行全面的神经系统检查（X21,148？=？17.63，p？<？0.001），临床上暴露于急性脑震荡的可能性更大（47％障碍比14％螺旋形，X21,148？=？19.27）。 ，p≤＜0.001）和脑震荡后综合征（37％阻塞对19％螺旋，X21，148≤ ＝ 5.91，p≤＝ 0.015）。这项初步研究的发现表明，螺旋课程设计强调并重新审视了临床能力，可以促进对高度流行的临床情况（例如脑震荡）的深刻理解和掌握。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号