Premium
Environmental medicine: its introduction into a medical school primary care requirement
Author(s) -
SOKAS R. K.,
FENTON B.,
FORAN J.,
DISERENS D.,
BARGMANN E.,
SCHWARTZ W.,
SIMMENS S.
Publication year - 1993
Publication title -
medical education
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.776
H-Index - 138
eISSN - 1365-2923
pISSN - 0308-0110
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1993.tb00294.x
Subject(s) - intervention (counseling) , medicine , medical education , likert scale , family medicine , session (web analytics) , primary care , psychology , physical therapy , nursing , computer science , developmental psychology , world wide web
Summary. One hundred and twelve medical students participating in a required 6‐week primary‐care rotation completed a pretest of environmental medicine knowledge and attitudes at the start of the rotation and a similar posttest on the last day of the rotation. Control group students were to participate in the usual weekly didactic sessions of the clerkship. Intervention students were given a booklet describing environmental considerations in clinical medicine and introducing them to the concept of risk assessment, three computer‐assisted instruction cases, and a problem‐based learning (PBL) exercise involving role‐play. Because voluntary compliance with evaluation forms was poor during year one, during the second year students in the intervention group were required to return evaluation forms in order to sit for the course final examination. Knowledge and attitudes of both intervention and control groups were compared at baseline and at the end of the rotation. Students in the intervention group also completed process evaluations of the intervention materials. Students in both intervention and control groups increased knowledge gains significantly during the second year of the intervention, while neither group improved during year 1. This may have been due to a ‘spill‐over’ effect among primary‐care teachers implementing the intervention. Students ranked both environmental and occupational medicine of least importance in their training compared with eight other aspects of medicine, and this ranking did not improve with intervention. The PBL exercise was well received by the students. Of 28 evaluations, 27 ranked the session in the highest 3 of a 5‐part Likert scale for worthwhile content, and 24 would recommend the session to a friend. When asked to list the most important things learned, 23 mentioned learning to look for additional information, and 12 mentioned realizing that the doctor does not know everything (and should admit that).