METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted in Thailand with 130 stakeholders (e.g., policy makers, pharmacy experts, educators, health care providers, patients, students and parents) from August-October 2013. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using an inductive thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Three main themes were derived from the findings: 1. influences on curriculum change (e.g., the needs of pharmacists to provide better patient care, the US-Thai consortium for the development of pharmacy education); 2. perceived benefits (e.g., improve pharmacy competencies from generalists to specialists, ready to work after graduation, providing a high quality of patient care); and 3. concerns (e.g., the higher costs of study for a longer period of time, the mismatch between the pharmacy graduates' competency and the job market's needs, insufficient preceptors and training sites, lack of practical experience of the faculty members and issues related to the separate licenses that are necessary due to the difference in the graduates' specialties).
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to highlight the issues surrounding the transition to the 6-year PharmD programme in Thailand, which was initiated due to the need for higher levels of competency among the nation's pharmacists. The transition was influenced by many factors. Many participants perceived benefits from the new pharmacy curriculum. However, some participants were concerned about this transition. Although most of the respondents accepted the need to go forward to the 6-year PharmD programme, designing an effective curriculum, providing a sufficient number of qualified PharmD preceptors, determining certain competencies of pharmacists in different practices and monitoring the quality of pharmacy education still need to be addressed during this transitional stage of pharmacy education in Thailand.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among year 1 to year 5 medical students in a private medical university. A self-administered questionnaire was used with the 3 major domains of professionalism and ethics i.e. discipline plagiarism and cheating.
RESULTS: A total of 464 respondents responded to the survey and they included medical students from year 1 and year 2 (pre-clinical) and years 3-5 (clinical years). Majority of the students, 275 (59.2%) answered that they had not seen any form of unethical behavior among other students. The females seem to have a larger number 172(63%) among the same gender compared to the males. Majority 352 (75%) of them had not heard of the 'Code of Professional Conduct by the Malaysian Medical Council'. About fifty three (53.1%) of the students answered that the training was sufficient.
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the perception of unethical behavior was 58.8% in the 1st year (pre-clinical) and it increased to 65.2% in the 5th year (clinical). The 3 main discipline issues were students do not show interest in class (mean 2.9/4), they are rude to other students (mean 2.8/4) and talking during class (mean 2.6/4). Despite the existence of unethical behavior among the students majority of them (71.7%) claimed that they had adequate training in ethics and professionalism. It is proposed that not only the teaching of ethics and professionalism be reviewed but an assessment strategy be introduced to strengthen the importance of professionalism and ethics.
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.
METHOD: Two categories of participants, i.e., medical doctors (n = 11) and final year medical students (Group 1, n = 5; Group 2, n = 10) participated in four separate focus group discussions. Nielsen's 5 dimensions of usability (i.e. learnability, effectiveness, memorability, errors, and satisfaction) and Pentland's narrative network were adapted as the framework to study the usability and the implementation of the checklist in a real clinical setting respectively.
RESULTS: Both categories (medical doctors and medical students) of participants found that the TWED checklist was easy to learn and effective in promoting metacognition. For medical student participants, items "T" and "W" were believed to be the two most useful aspects of the checklist, whereas for the doctor participants, it was item "D". Regarding its implementation, item "T" was applied iteratively, items "W" and "E" were applied when the outcomes did not turn out as expected, and item "D" was applied infrequently. The one checkpoint where all four items were applied was after the initial history taking and physical examination had been performed to generate the initial clinical impression.
CONCLUSION: A metacognitive checklist aimed to check cognitive errors may be a useful tool that can be implemented in the real clinical setting.
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.