Methods: A multicentre cross-sectional study was conducted in 12 government hospitals accredited for housemanship training within the central zone of Malaysia. The study included a total of 1,074 house officers who had been working for at least 6 months in various housemanship rotations. The Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R) was used to examine workplace bullying.
Results: The 6-month prevalence of workplace bullying among study participants was 13%. Work-related bullying such as 'being ordered to do work below your level of competence', person-related bullying such as 'being humiliated or ridiculed in connection with your work', and physically intimidating bullying such as 'being shouted at or being the target of spontaneous anger' were commonly reported by study participants. Medical officers were reported to be the commonest perpetrators of negative actions at the workplace. Study participants who graduated from Eastern European medical schools (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.27; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.27, 4.07) and worked in surgical-based rotation (AOR 1.83; 95% CI: 1.13, 2.97) had higher odds of bullying compared to those who graduated from local medical schools and worked in medical-based rotation, whereas study participants with good English proficiency (AOR 0.14; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.94) had lower odds of bullying compared to those with poor English proficiency.
Conclusion: The present study shows that workplace bullying is prevalent among Malaysian junior doctors. Considering the gravity of its consequences, impactful strategies should be developed and implemented promptly in order to tackle this serious occupational hazard.
METHODS: A 20-item questionnaire was distributed online to medical professors of a Saudi, Malaysian and a Pakistani medical school. The participants were instructed to select their responses on a 5-point Likert's scale and the collected data was analyzed for quantitative and qualitative results.
RESULTS: Of 161, 110 responded; response rate of 68.3%. About 35% professors spent 1-4 hours and 2% spent 19-25 hours per week for research. As many as 7% did not publish a single article and 29% had published 10 or more articles after attaining professor rank. During the last two years, 44% professors had published 5 or more research articles. Majority pointed out a lack of research support and funds, administrative burden and difficulty in data collection as the main obstacles to their research.
CONCLUSIONS: This research has identified time constraints and insufficient support for research as key barriers to medical professors' research productivity. Financial and technical support and lesser administrative work load are some suggested remedies to foster the professors' research output.
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare student performance in MCQ and VSAQ and obtain feedback. from the stakeholders.
METHODS: Conduct multiple true-false, one best answer, and VSAQ tests in two batches of medical students, compare their scores and psychometric indices of the tests and seek opinion from students and academics regarding these assessment methods.
RESULTS: Multiple true-false and best answer test scores showed skewed results and low psychometric performance compared to better psychometrics and more balanced student performance in VSAQ tests. The stakeholders' opinions were significantly in favour of VSAQ.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: This study concludes that VSAQ is a viable alternative to multiple-choice question tests, and it is widely accepted by medical students and academics in the medical faculty.
Objectives: The present study aims to explore the hurdles in cultivating humanistic physicians in the clinical setting.
Methods: We conducted a qualitative study involving medical students in the clinical phase, as well as residents, clinical teachers, and module administrators in the clinical setting under study.
Results: Respondents from different groups of stakeholders shared the same definition for 'humanistic physician': a physician who provides patient-centred care while demonstrating empathy, respect, compassion, integrity, knowledge, competence and a collaborative spirit. Despite changes in the healthcare system and technological advancements, humanistic physicians are still needed.
Conclusion: Cultivating humanistic physicians is a complex process, requiring various methods and assessments. Role models play a significant role in this process, which included not only clinical teachers but also peers. Feedback from peers was perceived as an important factor. The key hurdles identified were negative role models, and a less humanistic learning environment and the students' personal backgrounds.
Methods: A qualitative method was employed to explore the feedback-seeking behaviour of undergraduate medical students in the Faculty of Medicine at Universitas Lampung. Focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with four student groups and each group consisted of 7-10 students from the years 2012, 2013 and 2014. Data triangulation was carried out through FGDs with teaching staff, and an interview with the Head of the Medical Education Unit.
Results: Study findings indicated that the motivation of students to seek feedback was underlain by the desire to obtain useful information and to control the impressions of others. Students will tend to seek feedback from someone to whom they have either a close relationship or whose credibility they value. The most common obstacle for students to seek feedback is the reluctance and fearfulness of receiving negative comments.
Conclusions: Through the identification of factors promoting and inhibiting feedback-seeking behaviour, medical education institutions are enabled to implement the appropriate and necessary measures to create a supportive feedback atmosphere in the learning process.
METHODS: Staff involved in student support from three medical schools were invited to participate in five workshops facilitated by an Australian educator. Video discussion triggers of students presenting with concerns were used in workshop activities, including written exercises, group discussions and reflection. The quantitative and qualitative data collected included categorical and free-text participant responses to questionnaires and structured field notes from local faculty developers using peer observation.
FINDINGS: Academic and clinician-teacher participants predominated in the workshops. Of 66 participant questionnaires (92% response rate), over 90% agreed that the workshop was relevant, and over 95% agreed that the videos facilitated discussion and the sharing of experiences. Field notes confirmed that participants were engaged by the videos, but identified that one student scenario and the approaches for seeking support in others were not immediately transferable to local contexts. The adaptation of facilitation techniques used in Australian workshops was needed to address audience responses.
DISCUSSION: Our findings confirm faculty development principles of content relevancy and incorporation of reflection. To enhance transferability, we recommend co-facilitation with local faculty members, the explicit signposting of topics and re-contextualising key concepts through reflective discussion.
Methods: A comparative cross-sectional study was conducted on the interviewed and non-interviewed cohorts. Their examination marks were obtained from the academic office, psychological health was measured by DASS-21, personality traits were measured by USMaP-15, and emotional intelligence was measured by USMEQ-17.
Results: The interviewed cohort performed significantly better in the clinical examination than the non-interviewed cohort. Conversely, the non-interviewed cohort performed significantly better in the theoretical examination. Depression, anxiety, and stress level between the two cohorts showed no difference. The interviewed cohort demonstrated more desirable personality traits, higher emotional intelligence, and social competence than the non-interviewed cohort.
Discussion: This study provides evidence to support the claim that the interview-based admission process has favourable outcomes on clinical performance, emotional intelligence, and personality traits. Several insights gained as a result of this study are discussed.