↓ Skip to main content

Exploring the value and role of integrated supportive science courses in the reformed medical curriculum iMED: a mixed methods study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

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
Exploring the value and role of integrated supportive science courses in the reformed medical curriculum iMED: a mixed methods study
Published in
BMC Medical Education, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0646-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sophie Eisenbarth, Thomas Tilling, Eva Lueerss, Jelka Meyer, Susanne Sehner, Andreas H. Guse, Jennifer Guse

Abstract

Heterogeneous basic science knowledge of medical students is an important challenge for medical education. In this study, the authors aimed at exploring the value and role of integrated supportive science (ISS) courses as a novel approach to address this challenge and to promote learning basic science concepts in medical education. ISS courses were embedded in a reformed medical curriculum. The authors used a mixed methods approach including four focus groups involving ISS course lecturers and students (two each), and five surveys of one student cohort covering the results of regular student evaluations including the ISS courses across one study year. They conducted their study at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf between December 2013 and July 2014. Fourteen first-year medical students and thirteen ISS course lecturers participated in the focus groups. The authors identified several themes focused on the temporal integration of ISS courses into the medical curriculum, the integration of ISS course contents into core curriculum contents, the value and role of ISS courses, and the courses' setting and atmosphere. The integrated course concept was positively accepted by both groups, with participants suggesting that it promotes retention of basic science knowledge. Values and roles identified by focus group participants included promotion of basic understanding of science concepts, integration of foundational and applied learning, and maximization of students' engagement and motivation. Building close links between ISS course contents and the core curriculum appeared to be crucial. Survey results confirmed qualitative findings regarding students' satisfaction, with some courses still requiring optimization. Integration of supportive basic science courses, traditionally rather part of premedical education, into the medical curriculum appears to be a feasible strategy to improve medical students' understanding of basic science concepts and to increase their motivation and engagement.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
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 6 13%
Professor 6 13%
Student > Master 5 10%
Lecturer 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 12 25%
Unknown 12 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 27%
Psychology 4 8%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 14 29%
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 10 May 2016.
All research outputs
#20,325,615
of 22,869,263 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#3,158
of 3,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,373
of 299,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#64
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,869,263 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 3,335 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 299,069 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 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.