Sök artiklar i SveMed+

Tidskrift

Sammanfattning

Background: One of the cornerstones of the new curriculum at the University of Aarhus is an eight-week-long internship preceded by a nine-week-long training program, including physiology, communication and clinical skills training, as well as an introductory clinical course in the third semester. Due to a shortening of the total length of the curriculum from 6 1/2 years to 6 years, students in the fourth semester of the new curriculum caught up with students in the fifth semester of the old curriculum. Both cohorts of students were taught physiology together and took the same physiology exam, allowing for comparison of the two groups of students. Materials and methods: An anonymous questionnaire was posted to 271 students who signed up for the physiology exam in the summer of 2000. The grades of the 248 students who attended the exam were analyzed with respect to passing frequency, average grades and grade distribution. Results: Ninety percent of the respondents of both curricula reported being satisfied with their choice of study, content with the curriculum and motivated to become a doctor. No difference was found in the percentage of students passing the exam. Students in the new curriculum had a higher average grade level in physiology compared to students in the old curriculum; however, they had also had a small but statistically significant higher average entrance exam score. Conclusion: Students following the new curriculum with early clinical exposure obtained, on average, higher grades on the physiology exam than did students in the old curriculum. This could, however, be due to the slight difference in their respective average entrance exam scores. Our study directs attention to the difficulties associated with evaluating the effect of new curricula due to problems in attaining valid control groups and the multiple possible cause-effect relationships embodied in a curriculum change.

MeSH