Klinikten Temele Köprü Vakalar: Bir Entegrasyon Örneği

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 24 Sayı: 74, 117 - 126, 22.12.2025

Rahime Merve Uçar , Hülya Özdemir , Nadire Ünver Doğan

https://doi.org/10.25282/ted.1710099

Öz

Türkçe Özet
Amaç: Bu çalışma, temel tıp bilimleri ile klinik bilimler arasında entegrasyonu teşvik etmek amacıyla, tıp fakültesi ikinci sınıf öğrencilerine vaka temelli üç ayrı entegre oturum sunmayı ve bu oturumlara ilişkin öğrenci görüşlerini değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır.
Yöntem: Çalışma, 2023–2024 ve 2024–2025 eğitim-öğretim yıllarında Selçuk Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi'nde gerçekleştirilen, "Klinikten Temele Köprü Vakalar" başlıklı üç oturuma katılan ikinci sınıf öğrencilerinden elde edilen geri bildirimlere dayanmaktadır. Öğrenci görüşleri 5’li likert ölçeği ile yapılandırılmış dijital bir anket aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Veriler frekans ve yüzde olarak sunulmuş, oturumlar arası farklar Ki-kare testi ile analiz edilmiştir.
Bulgular: Üç oturumun tamamında öğrencilerin büyük çoğunluğu, derslerin tıp eğitimiyle ilişkili olduğunu, içeriğin yeterli olduğunu ve temel ile klinik bilimler arasında bağlantı kurulmasına yardımcı olduğunu belirtmiştir. Oturumlar, temel bilimlere olan ilgiyi artırmış, öğrenmeyi kolaylaştırmış ve entegre oturumlara yönelik talebi güçlendirmiştir. Oturumlar arası istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark saptanmamıştır (p>0.05).
Sonuç: Çalışma, vaka temelli entegre oturumların öğrenciler tarafından olumlu karşılandığını ve temel-klinik bilim entegrasyonuna katkı sağladığını göstermektedir. Bu model, tıp eğitiminde entegrasyona yönelik etkili bir yaklaşım olarak diğer fakülteler için örnek teşkil edebilir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Tıp eğitimi, entegrasyon, vaka temelli öğrenme, temel bilimler, klinik bilimler

Anahtar Kelimeler

tıp eğitimi , entegrasyon , vaka temelli öğrenme , temel bilimler , klinik bilimler

Proje Numarası

160

Bridging Cases from Clinic to Basic Sciences: A Model of Integration in Medical Education

Öz

Abstract
Objective: This study aims to promote integration between basic and clinical sciences by delivering three case-based integrated sessions to second-year medical students and evaluating their feedback on these sessions.
Methods: The study is based on feedback collected from second-year medical students at Selçuk University Faculty of Medicine during the 2023–2024 and 2024–2025 academic years, who participated in sessions titled “Bridging Cases from Clinic to Basic Sciences.” Student opinions were collected via a structured digital survey using a 5-point likert scale. Data were presented as frequencies and percentages; differences across sessions were analyzed using the chi-square test.
Results: Across all three sessions, the vast majority of students stated that the sessions were relevant to medical education, the content was sufficient, and they helped bridge basic and clinical sciences. The sessions increased interest in basic sciences, facilitated learning, and strengthened the demand for more integrated sessions. No statistically significant differences were found between sessions (p > 0.05).
Conclusions: The findings indicate that the case-based integrated sessions were well received and contributed positively to the integration of basic and clinical sciences. This model may serve as an effective example of integration for other medical schools.
Keywords: Medical education, integration, case-based learning, basic sciences, clinical sciences

Anahtar Kelimeler

medical education , integration , case-based learning , basic sciences , clinical sciences

Etik Beyan

Selçuk Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Etik Kurulu tarafından 160 karar sayısı ile onaylandı.

Proje Numarası

160

Kaynakça

• 1. Harden RM. The integration ladder: a tool for curriculum planning and evaluation. Med Educ. 2000;34(7):551–7.
• 2. Harden RM, Sowden S, Dunn WR. Educational strategies in curriculum development: The SPICES model. Med Educ. 1984;18(4):284–97.
• 3. Flexner A. Medical Education in the United States and Canada (Bulletin No. 4). New York: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching; 1910.
• 4. Meakins JC. The integration of clinical medicine with the preclinical sciences. J Assoc Am Med Coll. 1937;10:78–85.
• 5. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Educating Physicians: A Call for Reform of Medical School and Residency [Internet]. 2010 Jun [cited 2025 March 17]. Available from: http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/newsroom/press-releases/educating-physicians-call-reform-medical-school-and-residency
• 6. The Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada (AFMC). The future of medical education in Canada: A collective vision for MD education. [Internet] [cited 2025 March 19]. Ottawa: AFMC; 2010. Available from: https://www.afmc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/2010-FMEC-MD_EN.pdf
• 7. Şenol Y, Aktekin M. Tıp Eğitiminde Entegrasyon. Tıp Eğitimi Dünyası. 2003;13(13):51-8.
• 8. Jones R, Higgs R, Angelis C, Prideaux D. Changing face of medical curricula. Lancet. 2001;357(9257):699–703.
• 9. Bandiera G, Boucher A, Neville A, Kuper A, Hodges B. Integration and timing of basic and clinical sciences education. Med Teach. 2013;35(5):381–7.
• 10. General Medical Council. Promoting excellence: standards for medical education and training [Internet]. London: GMC; [cited 2025 April 22]. Available from: http://www.gmc-uk.org/education/standards.asp
• 11. Badyal DK, Singh T. Teaching of basic sciences in medicine: The changing trends. Natl Med J India. 2015;28(3):137–40.
• 12. Custers EJFM. Long-term retention of basic science knowledge: a review study. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2010;15(1):109–28.
• 13. Kennedy W, Kelley P, Saffran M. Use of NBME examinations to assess retention of basic science knowledge. J Med Educ. 1981;56:167–173.
• 14. Dillon G. FLEX Reference Group Data [internal report]. Philadelphia, Penn: National Board of Medical Examiners; 1988.
• 15. Dillon G, Swanson D, Nungester R, Kelley P, Powell R. Retention of basic science information by fourth-year medical students. Paper presented at: Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association; Chicago, Ill; 1991.
• 16. Swanson D, Case S, Luecht R, Dillon G. Retention of basic science information by fourth-year medical students. Acad Med. 1996;71(10 suppl):S80–S82.
• 17. Pring R. Curriculum integration. In: Hooper R, editor. The Curriculum: Context Design and Development Education. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd; 1970. p. 265–72.
• 18. Shimura T, Takumi A, Shimizu K, Miyashita S, Adachi K, Teramoto A. Implementation of Integrated Medical Curriculum in Japanese Medical Schools. J Nippon Med Sch. 2004;71(1):11–6.
• 19. Neufeld VR, Woodward CA, MacLeod SM. The McMaster M.D. program: A case study of renewal in medical education. Acad Med. 1989;64(8):423–32.
• 20. Hays R. Integration in medical education: what do we mean? Educ Prim Care. 2013 May;24(3):151-2. doi: 10.1080/14739879.2013.11494358. PMID: 23676867.
• 21. Brauer DG, Ferguson KJ. The integrated curriculum in medical education: AMEE Guide No.96. Med Teach. 2015;37(4):312–22.
• 22. Harden RM (1999) What is a spiral curriculum? Medical Teacher 21 (2): 141–3 (doi: 10.1080/01421599979752).
• 23. Dahle LO, Brynhildsen J, Behrbohm Fallsberg M, Rundquist I, Hammar M. Pros and cons of vertical integration between clinical medicine and basic science within a problem-based undergraduate medical curriculum: Examples and experiences from Linköping, Sweden. Med Teach. 2002;24(3):280–5.
• 24. Vidic B, Weitlauf HM. Horizontal and vertical integration of academic disciplines in the medical school curriculum. Clin Anat. 2002;15(3):233–5.
• 25. Koens F, Custers EJ, Ten Cate OT. Clinical and basic science teachers’ opinions about the required depth of biomedical knowledge for medical students. Med Teach. 2006;28(3):234–8.
• 26. Nagdeo N. Integrated teaching. J Educ Technol Health Sci. 2014;1(1):23–6.
• 27. Kuper A, D'Eon M. Rethinking the basis of medical knowledge. Med Educ. 2011;45(1):36–43.
• 28. Mylopoulos M, Woods N. Preparing medical students for future learning using basic science instruction. Med Educ. 2014;48(7):667–73.
• 29. Schmidt HG, Machiels-Bongaerts M, Hermans H, ten Cate TJ, Venekamp R, Boshuizen H. The development of diagnostic competence: comparison of a problem-based, an integrated, and a conventional medical curriculum. Acad Med. 1996;71(6):658–64.
• 30. Woods NN, Brooks LR, Norman GR. The value of basic science in clinical diagnosis: Creating coherence among signs and symptoms. Med Educ. 2005;39(1):107–12.
• 31. Woods NN, Brooks LR, Norman GR. The role of biomedical knowledge in diagnosis of difficult clinical cases. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2007;12(4):417–26.
• 32. Woods NN, Neville AJ, Levinson AJ, Howey EH, Oczkowski WJ, Norman GR. The value of basic science in clinical diagnosis. Acad Med. 2006;81(10 Suppl):S124–7.
• 33. Baghdady MT, Pharoah MJ, Regehr G, Lam EW, Woods NN. The role of basic sciences in diagnostic oral radiology. J Dent Educ. 2009;73(10):1187–93.
• 34. Baghdady MT, Carnahan H, Lam EW, Woods NN. Integration of basic sciences and clinical sciences in oral radiology education for dental students. J Dent Educ. 2013;77(6):757–63.
• 35. Woods NN, Brooks LR, Norman GR. It all makes sense: Biomedical knowledge, causal connections and memory in the novice diagnostician. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2007;12(4):405–15.
• 36. Wijnen-Meijer M, Ten Cate OTJ, Van der Schaaf M, Borleffs JCC. Vertical integration in medical school: effect on the transition to postgraduate training. Med Educ. 2010;44(3):272–9.
• 37. Kolluru S, Roesch DM, Akhtar de la Fuente A. A multi-instructor, team-based, active-learning exercise to integrate basic and clinical sciences content. Am J Pharm Educ. 2012;76(2):33.
• 38. Rudic A, Bassan N. An interdisciplinary course in the basic sciences for senior medical and PhD students. Acad Med. 2001;76(10):1072–5.
• 39. Neville AJ. Basic science and medical education: Dinosaurs, departments and definitions—A McMaster view. Clin Invest Med. 2000;23(1):30–4.
• 40. Martimianakis MA, Hodges BD, Wasylenki D. Understanding the challenges of integrating scientists and clinical teachers in psychiatry education: Findings from an innovative faculty development program. Acad Psychiatry. 2009;33(4):241–7.
• 41. Yamani N, Rahimi M. The core curriculum and integration in medical education. Res Dev Med Educ. 2016;5(2):50-54. doi: 10.15171/rdme.2016.011.
• 42. Woods NN. Science is fundamental: The role of biomedical knowledge in clinical reasoning. Med Educ. 2007;41(12):1173–7.
• 43. Wraga WG. Toward a connected core curriculum. Educ Horiz. 2009;87(2):88–96.