IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0236365.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How curricular changes influence medical students’ perceptions of basic science: A pilot study

Author

Listed:
  • Yousef Elfanagely
  • Joshua Ray Tanzer
  • Ricardo Pulido
  • Hanin Rashid
  • Liesel Copeland

Abstract

Theory: The perceived value of study material may have implications on learning and long-term retention. This study compares the perceived value of basic science of medical students from schools with a traditional “2+2” curriculum and the USMLE Step 1 placed before core clerkships to those from medical schools that have undergone curricular revisions, resulting in shortened pre-clerkship curricula and administration of the USMLE Step 1 after core clerkships. Hypothesis: We hypothesize that differences in curricula, particularly duration of pre-clerkship curriculum and timing of the USMLE Step 1, affect medical students’ perceived value of basic science. Methods: A twenty item anonymous questionnaire using a 5-point Likert scale was developed to assess medical students’ perceptions of basic science. The questionnaire was distributed to third-year medical students across four medical schools. Generalized linear models and p-values were calculated comparing the perceived value and use of basic science between medical schools with the USMLE Step 1 before clerkships and 2-years of basic science (BC) and medical schools with the USMLE Step 1 after core clerkships and 1.5-years of basic science (AC). Results: The questionnaire was distributed to 695 eligible students and completed by 287 students. Students at BC schools tended to view basic science as more essential for clinical practice than students at AC schools across both outcomes (rating independence of basic science and clinical practice, AC school mean = 2.97, BC school mean = 2.73, p = 0.0017; rating importance of basic science to clinical practice, AC school mean = 3.30, BC schools mean = 3.50, p = 0.0135). Conclusions: Our study suggests that students who have a longer basic science curriculum tend to value basic science greater than students with a shorter basic science curriculum. The timing of the USMLE Step 1 may also influence this relationship. Curricular decisions, such as reductions in pre-clerkship curricula and administration of the USMLE Step 1 after clerkships, may impact medical students’ perceptions of the value of basic science to clinical practice. This can have implications on their future engagement with basic science and should be considered when modifying curriculum.

Suggested Citation

  • Yousef Elfanagely & Joshua Ray Tanzer & Ricardo Pulido & Hanin Rashid & Liesel Copeland, 2020. "How curricular changes influence medical students’ perceptions of basic science: A pilot study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-10, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0236365
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236365
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0236365
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0236365&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0236365?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Margarita Rubio & María Sánchez-Ronco & Rosa Mohedano & Asunción Hernando, 2018. "The impact of participatory teaching methods on medical students’ perception of their abilities and knowledge of epidemiology and statistics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-12, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0236365. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.