METHODS: This study employed a phenomenological design. Five focus groups were conducted with medical students who had participated in several Kahoot! sessions.
RESULTS: Thirty-six categories and nine sub-themes emerged from the focus group discussions. They were grouped into three themes: attractive learning tool, learning guidance and source of motivation.
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that Kahoot! sessions motivate students to study, to determine the subject matter that needs to be studied and to be aware of what they have learned. Thus, the platform is a promising tool for formative assessment in medical education.
Methods: A qualitative phenomenological study was conducted on a group of Universiti Sains Malaysia medical students who had finished the Community and Family Case Study (CFCS) program. Data were gathered through focused group discussions and student reflective journals. Participants were sampled using the maximal variation technique of purposive sampling. Three steps of thematic analysis using the Atlasti software were employed to identify categories, subthemes, and themes.
Results: Personal, role, social, and research identities were generated that contribute to the PID of medical students through the CFCS program. The results indicate that the CFCS program nurtured personal identity through the development of professional skills, soft skills, and personal values. Pertaining to role identity, this is related to patient care in terms of primary care and interprofessional awareness. Pertaining to social identity, the obvious feature was community awareness related to culture, society, and politics. A positive outcome of the CFCS program was found to be its fostering of research skills, which is related to the use of epidemiology and research methods.
Conclusion: The findings indicate that the CFCS program promotes PID among medical students. The current data highlight and provide insights into the importance of integrating CBE into medical curricula to prepare future doctors for their entry into the profession.
Materials and methods: A systematic literature survey was adopted in this paper, involving the review of 25 relevant researched articles found in the databases Science Direct, EBSCO, MEDLINE, CINAHL and PubMed.
Result: The systematic literature survey reveals five variables to be core predictors of TQM, signifying how important these variables are in the successful implementation of TQM in the health-care context. Also, it is revealed that the identified core predictors have positive effects on an improved health-care system. However, the systematic survey of the literature reveals a dearth of studies on TQM in the health-care context.
Conclusion: As TQM has become an important management approach for advancing effectiveness in the health-care sector, this kind of research is of value to researchers and managers. Stakeholders in the health sectors should introduce and implement TQM in hospitals and clinics. Nevertheless, this study has limitations, including that the databases and search engines adopted for the literature search are not exhaustive.
METHODS: A questionnaire development and validation study was conducted. The resilience domains and items were identified and generated through a literature review. The content validation was carried out by content experts and the content validity index (CVI) was calculated. The face validation was performed by medical officers and the face validity index (FVI) was calculated. The final MeRS was administered to 167 medical officers, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and reliability analysis were performed to assess MeRS's factorial structure and internal consistency.
RESULTS: Four domains with 89 items of medical professionals' resilience were developed. Following that, the content and face validation was conducted, and a total of 41-items remained for construct validation. EFA extracted four factors, namely growth, control, involvement, and resourceful, with a total of 37 items. The items' CVI and FVI values were more than 0.80. The final MeRS's items had factor loading values ranged from 0.41 to 0.76, and the Cronbach's alpha values of the resilience domains ranged from 0.72 to 0.89.
CONCLUSIONS: MeRS is a promising scale for measuring medical professionals' resilience as it showed good psychometric properties. This study provided validity evidence in terms of content, response process, and internal structure that supported the validity of MeRS in the measurement of resilience domains among medical professionals.