Which Pathology Education Method Is More Useful in Active Professional Life? A Survey of Clinicians
Öz
Methods: An open-ended, multiple choice and Likert scale format digital questionnaire consisting of 12 questions was filled by the consenting physicians who graduated in 2000 and later.
Results: Total 107 physicians (39 (36.4%) clinical, 38 (35.5%) surgical sciences and 30 (28%) general practitioners) participated in the study. Forty-one physicians (38%) took the pathology course only in the third year. Didactic training was most frequently accompanied by microscopy (n = 94, 87.9%) training. Sixty-six (61.68%) physicians additionally received macroscopy training. Pathology education was very useful and beneficial for their current professional life for 75% physicians and was very sufficient and quite sufficient in 45% physicians. There was a statistically significant relationship between the benefit of pathology in professional life and the adequacy of the education received (p = 0.01). The usability of the knowledge (n = 89, 83.2%), the educational methods (n = 78, 72.9%), and the characteristics of the educator (n = 75, 70.1%) were rated as the most important factors for its benefit in active professional life. Case discussions (n= 79, 72.9%), macroscopy (n = 65, 60.7%), and microscopy laboratory study (n
= 62, 57.9%), problem-based learning (PBL) (n = 61, 57.0%), and observation in hospital laboratory ( n= 51, 47.6%) are recommended besides objective structured practical exam (OSPE) (n = 85, 79.4%) and
objective structured clinical exam (OSCE) (n = 76, 71.0%).
Conclusions: Pathology education will be helpful in active professional life if the curriculum is usable, integrated with the clinic and delivered with diversified up-to-date learning methods. The benefit of pathology education increases in parallel to its adequacy. Also, surgical and internal sciences physicians benefit more than practitioners. It would be appropriate to set up-to-date standards on the years, duration, content and method of pathology education.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- 1- Cecil, Russell L. 1881-1965., Lee Goldman, MD, and Andrew I Schafer. Goldman's Cecil Medicine. 24th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier/Saunders, 2012.
- 2- MEZUNİYET ÖNCESİ TIP EĞİTİMİ ULUSAL ÇEKİRDEK EĞİTİM PROGRAMI 2020. https://www.yok.gov.tr/ Documents/Kurumsal/egitim_ogretim_dairesi/Ulusal-cekirdek-egitimi-programlari/mezuniyet-oncesi-tip-egitimi-cekirdek-egitimi-programi.pdf. Erişim tarihi 10 Nisan 2021.
- 3-Domizio P. The changing role of pathology in the undergraduate curriculum. [Internet] . Erişim tarihi 20 Nisan 2021. https://www.pathsoc.org/ files/history/c12.pdf.
- 4- Buja LM. Medical education today: all that glitters is not gold. Medical Education 2019; 19:110
- 5- Khonglah Y, Raphael V, Mishra J, Marbaniang E, Chowdhury Z, Dey B. Relooking the curriculum and assessment in undergraduate pathology. J Edu Health Promot 2019;8:116
- 6- Gençer CU, Dere Y. Pathology Education in Medical Faculties. MAKU J. Health Sci Inst 2019; 7(1): 25-28.
- 7- Kumar, Vinay, Abul K. Abbas, Jon C. Aster, and James A. Perkins. Robbins Basic Pathology. Tenth edition. Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2018.
- 8-Marsdin E, Biswas S. Are We Learning Enough Pathology in Medical School to Prepare Us for Postgraduate Training and Examinations?. Journal of Biomedical Education 2013; 2013:1-3.
Ayrıntılar
Birincil Dil
İngilizce
Konular
Sağlık Kurumları Yönetimi
Bölüm
Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar
Sibel Sensu
*
0000-0002-4607-780X
Türkiye
Hikmet Koçak
0000-0003-1720-9102
Türkiye
Nuriye Fışgın
0000-0002-9283-4963
Türkiye
Nusret Erdoğan
0000-0002-0333-8600
Türkiye
Yayımlanma Tarihi
30 Nisan 2022
Gönderilme Tarihi
12 Temmuz 2021
Kabul Tarihi
5 Kasım 2021
Yayımlandığı Sayı
Yıl 2022 Cilt: 21 Sayı: 63