CONTEXT: This study set out to test the hypotheses that after the implementation of an integrated contextual medical curriculum (ICMC), ICMC students would attain higher levels of knowledge in both the basic and clinical sciences at an earlier stage than conventional medical curriculum (CMC) students, that ICMC students would perform significantly better on knowledge tests at the end of their education and, finally, that ICMC students would show a more linear acquisition of knowledge in the basic and clinical sciences. METHODS: We drew upon the Dutch Inter-University Progress Test (PT) to measure impact on knowledge acquisition and compared PT scores of 393 CMC students with scores of 1028 ICMC students (Years 2-6) in a cross-sectional design. We also compared the scores of 112 CMC students with those of 197 ICMC students in Years 3-6 in a longitudinal design. RESULTS: As expected, ICMC students showed a steeper learning curve in both the basic and clinical sciences: at the end of their training students had attained higher levels of knowledge in both domains. The learning curve pertaining to the clinical sciences was almost linear, whereas that for the basic sciences showed a sharper rise, indicating a continuing growth of knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: The differential impact on knowledge acquisition of conventional and innovative curricula has seldom been studied in a longitudinal and cross-sectional design. This study confirmed our assumptions about the potential of an integrated contextual curriculum. The differences observed in ICMC students were attributed to the stronger emphasis on clinically relevant basic sciences in the early years of the ICMC and to the stronger integration of basic and clinical sciences in the ICMC.
CONTEXT: This study set out to test the hypotheses that after the implementation of an integrated contextual medical curriculum (ICMC), ICMC students would attain higher levels of knowledge in both the basic and clinical sciences at an earlier stage than conventional medical curriculum (CMC) students, that ICMC students would perform significantly better on knowledge tests at the end of their education and, finally, that ICMC students would show a more linear acquisition of knowledge in the basic and clinical sciences. METHODS: We drew upon the Dutch Inter-University Progress Test (PT) to measure impact on knowledge acquisition and compared PT scores of 393 CMC students with scores of 1028 ICMC students (Years 2-6) in a cross-sectional design. We also compared the scores of 112 CMC students with those of 197 ICMC students in Years 3-6 in a longitudinal design. RESULTS: As expected, ICMC students showed a steeper learning curve in both the basic and clinical sciences: at the end of their training students had attained higher levels of knowledge in both domains. The learning curve pertaining to the clinical sciences was almost linear, whereas that for the basic sciences showed a sharper rise, indicating a continuing growth of knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: The differential impact on knowledge acquisition of conventional and innovative curricula has seldom been studied in a longitudinal and cross-sectional design. This study confirmed our assumptions about the potential of an integrated contextual curriculum. The differences observed in ICMC students were attributed to the stronger emphasis on clinically relevant basic sciences in the early years of the ICMC and to the stronger integration of basic and clinical sciences in the ICMC.
Authors: Ralf Schmidmaier; Matthias Holzer; Matthias Angstwurm; Zineb Nouns; Martin Reincke; Martin R Fischer Journal: GMS Z Med Ausbild Date: 2010-11-15
Authors: Abdulkareem M Albekairy; Aiman A Obaidat; Mansour S Alsharidah; Abdulmajeed A Alqasomi; Abdulrhman S Alsayari; Ahmad A Albarraq; Ahmad M Aljabri; Alian A Alrasheedy; Bader H Alsuwayt; Bandar E Aldhubiab; Faisal A Almaliki; Majed M Alrobaian; Mohammad A Aref; Najla A Altwaijry; Nasser H Alotaibi; Saad A Alkahtani; Saleh A Bahashwan; Yaser A Alahmadi Journal: Adv Med Educ Pract Date: 2021-12-16
Authors: Richard A Hoppmann; Jeanette Mladenovic; Lawrence Melniker; Radu Badea; Michael Blaivas; Miguel Montorfano; Alfred Abuhamad; Vicki Noble; Arif Hussain; Gregor Prosen; Tomás Villen; Gabriele Via; Ramon Nogue; Craig Goodmurphy; Marcus Bastos; G Stephen Nace; Giovanni Volpicelli; Richard J Wakefield; Steve Wilson; Anjali Bhagra; Jongyeol Kim; David Bahner; Chris Fox; Ruth Riley; Peter Steinmetz; Bret P Nelson; John Pellerito; Levon N Nazarian; L Britt Wilson; Irene W Y Ma; David Amponsah; Keith R Barron; Renee K Dversdal; Mike Wagner; Anthony J Dean; David Tierney; James W Tsung; Paula Nocera; José Pazeli; Rachel Liu; Susanna Price; Luca Neri; Barbara Piccirillo; Adi Osman; Vaughan Lee; Nitha Naqvi; Tomislav Petrovic; Paul Bornemann; Maxime Valois; Jean-Francoise Lanctot; Robert Haddad; Deepak Govil; Laura A Hurtado; Vi Am Dinh; Robert M DePhilip; Beatrice Hoffmann; Resa E Lewiss; Nayana A Parange; Akira Nishisaki; Stephanie J Doniger; Paul Dallas; Kevin Bergman; J Oscar Barahona; Ximena Wortsman; R Stephen Smith; Craig A Sisson; James Palma; Mike Mallin; Liju Ahmed; Hassan Mustafa Journal: Ultrasound J Date: 2022-07-27
Authors: Sebastiaan Koole; Tim Dornan; Leen Aper; Albert Scherpbier; Martin Valcke; Janke Cohen-Schotanus; Anselme Derese Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2012-08-13 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Sophie Eisenbarth; Thomas Tilling; Eva Lueerss; Jelka Meyer; Susanne Sehner; Andreas H Guse; Jennifer Guse Nee Kurré Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2016-04-29 Impact factor: 2.463