Laurel Witt 1 , Kari M Nilsen 2 , Megan Kohman 3 , Austin Petz 3 , Scott Moser 2 , Anne Walling 2 Show Affiliations »
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In a prior qualitative study of the impact of a new (ACE) medical school curriculum, students and faculty reported decreased participation in the student-run free clinic (SRFC) attributed to more intensive scheduling and more frequent testing compared to the previous (Legacy) curriculum. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To verify and understand this perception formed during curriculum reform, we conducted a mixed method study to measure student participation in the SRFC before and after curricular change and assessed student beliefs and motivations about SRFC participation using focus groups. RESULTS: Overall SRFC participation did not decrease among students in the ACE cohort following curriculum change. Additionally, both Legacy and ACE groups showed lower participation during test weeks, but the decrease was not significantly different between the ACE and Legacy cohorts. Focus groups confirmed the pervasive misbelief that SRFC participation was indeed lower among ACE students and attributed to reduced student discretionary time plus increased preparation time for frequent testing. Focus groups also revealed several "values" about volunteering at the SRFC which should be endorsed and promoted by schools considering curricular change. Participants valued the SRFC for educational items that were most effectively taught in the SRFC, notably social determinants of health, interprofessional practice, and interviewing with medical interpreters. They also valued the SRFC for professional validation, opportunities to apply course content, practice clinical skills, form important professional relationships, and provide community service. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings validate the value of SRFC experience as reported by students and demonstrate that, contrary to misbeliefs, participation was not negatively impacted by curricular reform. © International Association of Medical Science Educators 2021.
INTRODUCTION: In a prior qualitative study of the impact of a new (ACE) medical school curriculum, students and faculty reported decreased participation in the student-run free clinic (SRFC) attributed to more intensive scheduling and more frequent testing compared to the previous (Legacy) curriculum. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To verify and understand this perception formed during curriculum reform, we conducted a mixed method study to measure student participation in the SRFC before and after curricular change and assessed student beliefs and motivations about SRFC participation using focus groups. RESULTS: Overall SRFC participation did not decrease among students in the ACE cohort following curriculum change. Additionally, both Legacy and ACE groups showed lower participation during test weeks, but the decrease was not significantly different between the ACE and Legacy cohorts. Focus groups confirmed the pervasive misbelief that SRFC participation was indeed lower among ACE students and attributed to reduced student discretionary time plus increased preparation time for frequent testing. Focus groups also revealed several "values" about volunteering at the SRFC which should be endorsed and promoted by schools considering curricular change. Participants valued the SRFC for educational items that were most effectively taught in the SRFC, notably social determinants of health, interprofessional practice, and interviewing with medical interpreters. They also valued the SRFC for professional validation, opportunities to apply course content, practice clinical skills, form important professional relationships, and provide community service. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings validate the value of SRFC experience as reported by students and demonstrate that, contrary to misbeliefs, participation was not negatively impacted by curricular reform. © International Association of Medical Science Educators 2021.
Entities: Chemical
Keywords:
Curricular change; Curricular reform; Service-learning activities; Student-run free clinics
Year: 2021
PMID： 34603837 PMCID： PMC8446137 DOI： 10.1007/s40670-021-01356-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Educ ISSN： 2156-8650