There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.
Abstract
Case-informed learning is an umbrella term we use to classify pedagogical approaches
that use text-based cases for learning. Examples include Problem-Based, Case-Based,
and Team-Based approaches, amongst others. We contend that the cases at the heart
of case-informed learning are philosophical artefacts that reveal traditional positivist
orientations of medical education and medicine, more broadly, through their centering
scientific knowledge and objective fact. This positivist orientation, however, leads
to an absence of the human experience of medicine in most cases.
One of the rationales for using cases is that they allow for learning in context,
representing aspects of real-life medical practice in controlled environments. Cases
are, therefore, a form of simulation. Yet issues of fidelity, widely discussed in
the broader simulation literature, have yet to enter discussions of case-informed
learning. We propose the concept of
ontological fidelity as a way to approach ontological questions (i.e., questions regarding what we assume
to be real), so that they might centre narrative and experiential elements of medicine.
Ontological fidelity can help medical educators grapple with what information should
be included in a case by encouraging an exploration of the philosophical questions:
What is
real? Which (and whose) reality do we want to simulate through cases? What are the essential
elements of a case that make it feel real? What is the clinical story we want to reproduce
in case format? In this Eye-Opener, we explore what it would mean to create cases
from a position of
ontological fidelity and provide suggestions for how to do this in everyday medical education.
Case-based learning (CBL) is a long established pedagogical method, which is defined in a number of ways depending on the discipline and type of 'case' employed. In health professional education, learning activities are commonly based on patient cases. Basic, social and clinical sciences are studied in relation to the case, are integrated with clinical presentations and conditions (including health and ill-health) and student learning is, therefore, associated with real-life situations. Although many claims are made for CBL as an effective learning and teaching method, very little evidence is quoted or generated to support these claims. We frame this review from the perspective of CBL as a type of inquiry-based learning. To explore, analyse and synthesise the evidence relating to the effectiveness of CBL as a means of achieving defined learning outcomes in health professional prequalification training programmes. We focused the review on CBL for prequalification health professional programmes including medicine, dentistry, veterinary science, nursing and midwifery, social care and the allied health professions (physiotherapy, occupational therapy, etc.). Papers were required to have outcome data on effectiveness. The search covered the period from 1965 to week 4 September 2010 and the following databases: ASSIA, CINAHL, EMBASE, Education Research, Medline and Web of Knowledge (WoK). Two members of the topic review group (TRG) independently reviewed the 173 abstracts retrieved from Medline and compared findings. As there was good agreement on inclusion, one went onto review the WoK and ASSIA EndNote databases and the other the Embase, CINAHL and Education Research databases to decide on papers to submit for coding. Coding and data analysis: The TRG modified the standard best evidence medical education coding sheet to fit our research questions and assessed each paper for quality. After a preliminary reliability exercise, each full paper was read and graded by one reviewer with the papers scoring 3-5 (of 5) for strength of findings being read by a second reviewer. A summary of each completed coding form was entered into an Excel spread sheet. The type of data in the papers was not amenable to traditional meta-analysis because of the variability in interventions, information given, student numbers (and lack of) and timings. We, therefore, adopted a narrative synthesis method to compare, contrast, synthesise and interpret the data, working within a framework of inquiry-based learning. The final number of coded papers for inclusion was 104. The TRG agreed that 23 papers would be classified as of higher quality and significance (22%). There was a wide diversity in the type, timing, number and length of exposure to cases and how cases were defined. Medicine was the most commonly included profession. Numbers of students taking part in CBL varied from below 50 to over 1000. The shortest interventions were two hours, and one case, whereas the longest was CBL through a whole year. Group sizes ranged from students working alone to over 30, with the majority between 2 and 15 students per group. The majority of studies involved single cohorts of students (61%), with 29% comparing multiple groups, 8% involving different year groups and 2% with historical controls. The outcomes evaluation was either carried out postintervention only (78 papers; 75%), preintervention and postintervention (23 papers; 22%) or during and postintervention (3 papers; <3%). Our analysis provided the basis for discussion of definitions of CBL, methods used and advocated, topics and learning outcomes and whether CBL is effective based on the evaluation data. Overwhelmingly, students enjoy CBL and think that it enhances their learning. The empirical data taken as a whole are inconclusive as to the effects on learning compared with other types of activity. Teachers enjoy CBL, partly because it engages, and is perceived to motivate, students. CBL seems to foster learning in small groups though whether this is the case delivery or the group learning effect is unclear.
ABSTRACT Background: Medical student exposure to stressors is associated with depression, burnout, somatic distress, decreases in empathy, serious thoughts about dropping out of medical school, suicidal ideation, and poor academic performance. Despite this, there have been no recent, multicenter, qualitative studies assessing medical students’ perceptions of their greatest stressor(s). Objective: The goal of this study was to identify the most significant stressors noted by medical students themselves, in order to inform the development of programs and policies to reduce medical student distress. Design: Medical students from the nine schools in the state of Florida were invited to complete an anonymous online questionnaire assessing wellness and distress. Students were notified that all responses were voluntary and that individual responses would not be linked to themselves or their program. This paper focuses on students’ responses to fixed-response items regarding their experience of stress and open-ended responses to the following question: ‘What do you consider to be the greatest stressor(s) facing medical students?’ Qualitative data were analyzed using the Grounded Theory method of data analysis. Results: Results confirmed the impact of several stressors highlighted in previous studies (e.g., excessive workload, difficulties with studying and time management, conflicts in work–life balance and relationships, medical school peer relations, health concerns, and financial stressors). However, students also reported unique system-level concerns that have not consistently been highlighted in past research (e.g., medical school administrative failures, concerns about lack of assistance with career planning, and assessment-related performance pressure. Conclusions: Though individually focused interventions have demonstrated some success, medical students self-report stressors that may be better addressed through system-level changes.
[1
]Department of Continuing Professional Development and Medical Education, Dalhousie
University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
[2
]Department of Emergency Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
[3
]Department of Pediatrics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Author notes
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Dr. Anna MacLeod, Ph.D Department of Continuing Professional
Development and Medical Education, Dalhousie University, C-104A, Clinical Research
Centre, 5849 University Avenue, Halifax, NS, B3H 4H7, Canada
Anna.Macleod@
123456dal.ca
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source
are credited. See
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
History
Date
received
: 27
October
2022
Date
accepted
: 30
March
2023
Funding
Funded by:
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, doi open-funder-registry10.13039/open_funder_registry10.13039/501100000155;
Award ID: 435-2020-0827
This study was funded by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council [Grant number: 435-2020-0827].
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.