METHODS: A realist review of articles reporting program outcomes as measures of resilience through the use of via validated psychometric surveys was conducted to investigate which contexts favour the development of resilience of healthcare and health sciences students and which mechanisms have to be activated to achieve this outcome.
RESULTS: Thirteen Context-Mechanism-Outcome Configurations were synthesised from data presented in 43 articles. These were combined with theories explaining the theoretical and psychological frameworks underpinning programs to develop a program theory of how and why resilience fostering programs work. Contexts which favour the development of resilience were the use of validated psychological frameworks as program foundation, e.g. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, mindfulness-based training. Expert facilitation, longitudinal integration into curricula, flexible and multi-modal design and delivery, and opportunities for students to apply and practice resilience-building strategies also created favourable contexts. Meeting students' or practitioners' needs activated mechanisms of trust, engagement and recognition of a program's value and real-world benefits. An increase in resilience was achieved by students developing reflective skills, metacognitive awareness and positive habits of mind.
CONCLUSION: The program theory established via a realist review provides guidance on how the individual resilience of healthcare students can be fostered throughout their undergraduate, postgraduate degrees and early practice, potentially supporting them to flourish and remain long-term in their chosen professional roles.
METHOD: A quantitative cross-sectional study design was adopted. Honey and Mumford's Learning Style Questionnaire was used to explore the learning styles.
RESULTS: The reflector learning style was most preferred by the Malaysian healthcare undergraduates, and no significant difference was found between the learning styles of the clinical group and the semi-clinical group.
CONCLUSIONS: Educators should engage Malaysian healthcare undergraduates in a non-threatening environment - Association between learning style and sociodemographic warrants further investigation.
METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional study design was used. Two different scales were used to measure the readiness for and perception of interprofessional learning; these were the 'Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale' and the 'Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale'. A convenience sampling method was employed. The sample was drawn from undergraduate students enrolled in years 1 to 5 of medical, dental, pharmacy and health sciences programme. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyse the data.
RESULTS: The overall response rate was 83%. The students mentioned that shared learning with other healthcare professional students will increase their ability to understand clinical problems. The students also mentioned that such shared learning will help them to communicate better with patients and other professionals. The students preferred to work with individuals from their own profession. Participants from medical, dental, pharmacy, and health sciences had a difference in opinion about 'negative professional identity', a domain of the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale. Based on the different year of study of the students, 'team work and collaboration', 'negative professional identity' and 'roles and responsibility' were the Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale domains where students had a difference in opinion.
CONCLUSIONS: Attitudes and readiness towards interprofessional learning showed significant differences among students of various healthcare professions; these differences also depended on the students' year of study. Interprofessional learning should be incorporated in the curriculum of all healthcare professional programs, which may foster students to become competent healthcare providers and understand each profession's role.
METHODS: A sequential mixed method research design was used in this study. A validated questionnaire was distributed to undergraduate students of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmacy programmes to collect their general views on LA. Focus group interviews with a total of 18 students were conducted to explore their perceptions in depth, followed by thematic analysis of the transcribed data.
RESULTS: Generally, the students were aware of their demographic data, utilisation of learning management system and academic performance data being collected by the university. They were agreeable for collection of those data which had direct association with their learning to be used for LA. However, they expressed concerns about the privacy, confidentiality, and security of the collected data. Three themes emerged from the interviews, i.e., self-regulated learning, evidence-based decision making and data management. The students perceived that LA could help them to monitor achievement of learning outcomes and provide support for individualised learning paths through recommendations of learning resources and learning motivation. They also opined that LA could help educators and institutions by providing feedback on teaching and learning methods, resource allocation and interventions to create conducive learning environment.
CONCLUSIONS: LA is a useful tool to support self-regulated learning, however, precautions should be exercised during implementation to ensure data privacy and security.