| Literature DB >> 28597874 |
Do-Hwan Kim1, Ah Reum An2, Eun Jeong Kim1, Jong-Koo Lee3, Seung-Hee Lee1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The problem regarding the geographic imbalance of the physician workforce has been a long-standing problem in South Korea. Additionally, rural medicine and public health have been marginalized across whole undergraduate curriculums. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an extracurricular program targeting medical students interested in rural and public health.Entities:
Keywords: Curriculum; Medical students; Public health; Rural health; Undergraduate medical education
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28597874 PMCID: PMC5465439 DOI: 10.3946/kjme.2017.58
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Korean J Med Educ ISSN: 2005-727X
Overview of the Program
| Program objectives | Types of activities | Theme of the activities |
|---|---|---|
| Obj. 1. Providing general concepts of RPH | Lecture | L1. Doctor’s role as a rural physician[ |
| L2. Basic understanding of RPH[ | ||
| Panel discussion (with five experts, no pre-established agenda)[ | P1. Current state of rural medicine in Korea | |
| P2. The role of public health service | ||
| P3. How to develop career as a rural physician | ||
| Obj. 2. Assessing the educational needs of students in RPH | Consensus workshop method[ | W1. What competencies are required for a rural physician? |
| Group discussion[ | W2. How should medical school faculties educate future rural physicians? | |
| Obj. 3. Examining the students’ change in perception on RPH | Evaluation (pre- and post-program survey)[ | S1. Perception of the importance of RPH |
| S2. Perception of clinical clerkship in different settings | ||
| S3. Perception of educational policy related to RPH | ||
| S4. Satisfaction with the program |
Obj.: Object, RPH: Rural and public health, L: Lecture, P: Panel discussion, W: Workshop, S: Survey.
These activities were scheduled for day 1,
These activities were scheduled for day 2.
Pre- and Post-Evaluation of the Program (N=53)
| Item | Pre-program score | Post-program score | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| S1. Satisfaction with the program | |||
| Q1. Overall satisfaction with the program[ | N/A | 5.35±0.68 | N/A |
| S2. Perception of the importance of RPH | |||
| Q2-1. Importance of rural medicine in South Korea[ | 5.04±0.66 | 5.29±0.64 | 0.048 |
| Q2-2. Importance of public health in South Korea[ | 4.92±0.68 | 5.43±0.57 | <0.001 |
| S3. Perception of clinical clerkship in different settings | |||
| Q3-1. Intention to do a clinical clerkship in metropolitan areas[ | 4.06±1.74 | 4.24±1.52 | 0.583 |
| Q3-2. Intention to do a clinical clerkship in major cities[ | 3.56±1.67 | 3.73±1.43 | 0.586 |
| Q3-3. Intention to do a clinical clerkship in a county (gun in Korean)[ | 2.43±1.04 | 2.98±1.24 | 0.018 |
| Q3-4. Intention to do a clinical clerkship in a town (eup or myeon in Korean)[ | 2.28±1.10 | 2.76±1.25 | 0.041 |
| Q4-1. Intention to do a clinical clerkship in a tertiary hospital[ | 4.65±1.61 | 4.67±1.42 | 0.966 |
| Q4-2. Intention to do a clinical clerkship in a secondary hospital[ | 3.24±1.53 | 3.76±1.41 | 0.076 |
| Q4-3. Intention to do a clinical clerkship in a primary care clinic[ | 2.41±1.22 | 3.20±1.43 | 0.004 |
| S4. Perception of related educational policy | |||
| Q5. Inclination to participate in a RPH-related extracurricular program during the vacation period[ | 2.83±1.12 | 3.10±1.27 | 0.252 |
| Q6. Effectiveness of the Regional Talents Admissions[ | 3.21±1.18 | 3.94±1.07 | 0.001 |
| Q7. Inclination to apply for a compulsory service bonded scholarship[ | 2.40±1.12 | 2.47±0.92 | 0.743 |
| Q8. Inclination to apply to a RPH specified medical school[ | 3.67±1.18 | 3.65±1.29 | 0.915 |
N/A: Not available, RPH: Rural and public health.
1: Very unsatisfied–6: Very satisfied,
1: Not important at all–6: Absolutely important,
1: No intention to participate in, 2: Affirmative for 1–3 months in total, 3: Affirmative for 4–6 months in total, 4: Affirmative for 7–9 months in total, 5: Affirmative for 10–12 months in total, 6: Affirmative for more than 13 months in total,
1: No intention to participate in, 2: Affirmative for spending 1 week every vacation, 3: Affirmative for spending 2 weeks every vacation, 4: Affirmative for spending 3 weeks every vacation, 5: Affirmative for spending 4 weeks every vacation, 6: Affirmative for spending more than 5 weeks every vacation,
1: Will have no impact at all–6: Will have a strong impact,
1: No intention to apply, 2: Will apply if the compulsory service is less than 2 years, 3: Will apply if the compulsory service is less than 4 years, 4: Will apply if the compulsory service is less than 6 years, 5: Will apply if the compulsory service is less than 8 years, 6: Will apply if the compulsory service is less than 10 years,
1: No intention to apply at all–6: Will certainly apply.