METHODS: Data for this study were obtained from final year medical students' exit examination (n=185). Retrospective analysis of data was conducted using SPSS. Means for the six CSs assessed across the 16 stations were computed and compared.
RESULTS: Means for history taking, physical examination, communication skills, clinical reasoning skills (CRSs), procedural skills (PSs), and professionalism were 6.25±1.29, 6.39±1.36, 6.34±0.98, 5.86±0.99, 6.59±1.08, and 6.28±1.02, respectively. Repeated measures ANOVA showed there was a significant difference in the means of the six CSs assessed [F(2.980, 548.332)=20.253, p<0.001]. Pairwise multiple comparisons revealed significant differences between the means of the eight pairs of CSs assessed, at p<0.05.
CONCLUSIONS: CRSs appeared to be the weakest while PSs were the strongest, among the six CSs assessed. Students' unsatisfactory performance in CRS needs to be addressed as CRS is one of the core competencies in medical education and a critical skill to be acquired by medical students before entering the workplace. Despite its challenges, students must learn the skills of clinical reasoning, while clinical teachers should facilitate the clinical reasoning process and guide students' clinical reasoning development.
Method: This is a mixed-method study. The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) was used to collect student SRL strategies while semi-structured interviews with faculty members and focus group discussions with students were used to gather data on the approaches that promote SRL. Student MSLQ was analysed using descriptive statistics while interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed.
Results: A pilot using MSLQ with 413 students recorded a Cronbach's alpha of 0.928 for the questionnaire. The actual study involved 457 Years 1 & 2 students. Students from both institutions are motivated by the Task Value, and they use Elaboration and Organisation strategies the most in their pre-clinical year. Three themes emerged from the qualitative analysis of this study: characteristics of strategies that promote SRL, hindrance in promoting SRL, and opportunities in promoting SRL.
Conclusions: Our findings indicate that students' intrinsic motivation is generally high in pre-clinical year. However, metacognition and critical thinking strategies will need to be enhanced among students. Despite knowing teaching and learning approaches could promote these strategies, many teachers are still not confident in doing so and hence training dang sharing best practices might be helpful in promoting SRL.
Method: A national survey was conducted among Malaysian medical schools between January and March 2019. One representative from each medical school was invited to respond to the survey. Respondents were faculty members involved in teaching and assessment of bioethics in their medical schools, or/and in developing and coordinating bioethics curriculum. Descriptive statistics were reported.
Findings: Out of 30 medical schools, 11 completed and returned the survey (overall response rate = 36.7%). Of these 11 schools, 6/10 (60%) were from public institutions while 5/20 (25%) were from private institutions. All except 1 school implemented a formal bioethics curriculum. A wide range of bioethics topics are currently taught in the medical programme. The majority involved in teaching bioethics were health care professionals (mainly clinicians), followed by lawyers. Lecture and attendance, respectively, are the most common teaching and assessment method. Major barriers to the implementation of bioethics education included limited qualified teaching staff (6/11 = 54.5%), no established curriculum to follow (5/11 = 45.5%), limited financial resources to hire qualified staff (4/11 = 36.4%), and no consensus among faculty members (4/11 = 36.4%).
Conclusion: Bioethics education in Malaysia is relatively new and mostly limited by a shortage of scholars in bioethics. National support and institutional collaboration in providing bioethics training is the key to enhance the quality of bioethics education.
Methods: Qualitative interviews and focus group discussions were conducted (December 2016 to July 2017) with clinical supervisors (n=11) and clinical trainees (n=26) utilising a topic guide exploring institutional guidelines, research culture and supervisor-student roles. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically to identify barriers to research supervision.
Results: Supervisors and trainees from 11 out of 18 departments participated. Both clinical supervisors and trainees struggled to successfully integrate a compulsory research component into residency training. Among the reasons identified included a lack of supervisory access due to the nature of clinical rotations and placements, clashing training priorities (clinical vs research) that discouraged trainees and supervisors from engaging in research, poor research expertise and experience among clinical supervisors hampering high-quality supervision, and a frustrating lack of clear standards between the various parties involved in research guidance and examination.
Conclusion: Both clinical supervisors and trainees struggled to successfully integrate a compulsory research component into residency training. This was not only an issue of resource limitation since questions regarding clinical priorities and unclear research standards emerged. Thus, institutional coordinators need to set clear standards and provide adequate training to make research meaningful and achievable for busy clinical supervisors and trainees.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted between 1st October 2021 till September 2022 in the state of Johor, Malaysia. 300 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were randomly selected and followed up for six months. Data were analysed by using Chi-square test, Fisher's Exact test, Paired t test and Multiple logistic regression.
RESULTS: The prevalence of short-term neuropsychiatric symptoms was 78%, with anosmia being the most prevalent symptom. Long-term symptoms were found in 22.75% of patients, with headache being the most prevalent (p= 0.001). COVID-19 Stage 2 and 3 infections were associated with a higher risk of short-term neuropsychiatric symptoms, OR for Stage 2 infection was 5.18 (95% CI: 1.48-16.97; p=0.009) and for Stage 3 infection was 4.52 (95% CI: 1.76-11.59; p=0.002). Complete vaccination was a significant predictor of longterm symptoms with adjusted OR 3.65 (95% CI 1.22-10.91; p=0.021).
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that neuropsychiatric symptoms were common among COVID-19 patients in Johor, Malaysia and the risk of these symptoms was associated with the severity of the infection. Additionally, complete vaccination does not completely protect against long-term neuropsychiatric deficits. This is crucial for continuous monitoring and addressing neuropsychiatric symptoms in COVID-19 survivors.