↓ Skip to main content

Contextualizing the relevance of basic sciences: small-group simulation with debrief for first- and second-year medical students in an integrated curriculum

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Medical Education and Practice, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Contextualizing the relevance of basic sciences: small-group simulation with debrief for first- and second-year medical students in an integrated curriculum
Published in
Advances in Medical Education and Practice, January 2017
DOI 10.2147/amep.s124851
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samara B Ginzburg, Judith Brenner, Michael Cassara, Thomas Kwiatkowski, Joanne M Willey

Abstract

There has been a call for increased integration of basic and clinical sciences during preclinical years of undergraduate medical education. Despite the recognition that clinical simulation is an effective pedagogical tool, little has been reported on its use to demonstrate the relevance of basic science principles to the practice of clinical medicine. We hypothesized that simulation with an integrated science and clinical debrief used with early learners would illustrate the importance of basic science principles in clinical diagnosis and management of patients. Small groups of first- and second-year medical students were engaged in a high-fidelity simulation followed by a comprehensive debrief facilitated by a basic scientist and clinician. Surveys including anchored and open-ended questions were distributed at the conclusion of each experience. The majority of the students agreed that simulation followed by an integrated debrief illustrated the clinical relevance of basic sciences (mean ± standard deviation: 93.8% ± 2.9% of first-year medical students; 96.7% ± 3.5% of second-year medical students) and its importance in patient care (92.8% of first-year medical students; 90.4% of second-year medical students). In a thematic analysis of open-ended responses, students felt that these experiences provided opportunities for direct application of scientific knowledge to diagnosis and treatment, improving student knowledge, simulating real-world experience, and developing clinical reasoning, all of which specifically helped them understand the clinical relevance of basic sciences. Small-group simulation followed by a debrief that integrates basic and clinical sciences is an effective means of demonstrating the relationship between scientific fundamentals and patient care for early learners. As more medical schools embrace integrated curricula and seek opportunities for integration, our model is a novel approach that can be utilized.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Other 4 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Other 11 23%
Unknown 15 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 25%
Social Sciences 6 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Psychology 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 16 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 October 2017.
All research outputs
#23,100,963
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#365,152
of 423,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 0.2. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 423,958 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them