Students’ Attitude towards Patient-Centered Care: A Comparative Study between Traditional and Integrated Curriculum

{"title":"Students’ Attitude towards Patient-Centered Care: A Comparative Study between Traditional and Integrated Curriculum","authors":"","doi":"10.37184/lnjpc.2707-3521.4.26","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background\nThe patient being the focus of all medical sciences therapy, patient-centered care is found to be more beneficial in improving the efficacy of care. It is now being emphasized that this competency of patient-centered care should be developed at the level of undergraduate. It is hoped that with time and experience medical students may develop this competency as a reflex in their clinical practice. Data about the attitude of medical students towards patient-centered care is variable. As well as comparative data as to which curriculum (i.e. traditional versus integrated) enhances this quality is also insufficient.\nObjective\nThe objective of this study is to compare the \"patient-centered care\" attitude of medical students from an integrated versus traditional curriculum.\nMethods\nA cross-sectional, comparative study was conducted at Liaquat national hospital and Medical College from June to December 2017. The sampling technique was non-probability convenience sampling. The calculated sample size was 110 participants in each group. Group A had medical students from the final year current batch and passed out batch (traditional curriculum) while Group B had medical students from current fourth and final year (Integrated curriculum). After consent, a validated questionnaire i.e. patient-physician orientation scale (PPOS) was given to students. Data was analyzed by SPSS version 23. Descriptive analysis was done to compute central tendencies and standard deviation and the Students' t-test, was applied. A P-value of 0.05 was considered significant.\nResults\nOut of 350 students participating in the study, male and female participants were 29.14% (102/350) and 70.85% (248/350) respectively. The mean age was 21.99 ±1.73. Traditional curricular medical students had significantly better total PPOS scores as compared with integrated curriculum students. Females also had significantly better scores than males (p=0.04). \n\nConclusion\n\nResults suggest that an integrated medical curriculum should be reviewed and strategies that promote patient-centered care should be incorporated into all phases of student learning.","PeriodicalId":140679,"journal":{"name":"Liaquat National Journal of Primary Care","volume":"97 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Liaquat National Journal of Primary Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37184/lnjpc.2707-3521.4.26","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background The patient being the focus of all medical sciences therapy, patient-centered care is found to be more beneficial in improving the efficacy of care. It is now being emphasized that this competency of patient-centered care should be developed at the level of undergraduate. It is hoped that with time and experience medical students may develop this competency as a reflex in their clinical practice. Data about the attitude of medical students towards patient-centered care is variable. As well as comparative data as to which curriculum (i.e. traditional versus integrated) enhances this quality is also insufficient. Objective The objective of this study is to compare the "patient-centered care" attitude of medical students from an integrated versus traditional curriculum. Methods A cross-sectional, comparative study was conducted at Liaquat national hospital and Medical College from June to December 2017. The sampling technique was non-probability convenience sampling. The calculated sample size was 110 participants in each group. Group A had medical students from the final year current batch and passed out batch (traditional curriculum) while Group B had medical students from current fourth and final year (Integrated curriculum). After consent, a validated questionnaire i.e. patient-physician orientation scale (PPOS) was given to students. Data was analyzed by SPSS version 23. Descriptive analysis was done to compute central tendencies and standard deviation and the Students' t-test, was applied. A P-value of 0.05 was considered significant. Results Out of 350 students participating in the study, male and female participants were 29.14% (102/350) and 70.85% (248/350) respectively. The mean age was 21.99 ±1.73. Traditional curricular medical students had significantly better total PPOS scores as compared with integrated curriculum students. Females also had significantly better scores than males (p=0.04). Conclusion Results suggest that an integrated medical curriculum should be reviewed and strategies that promote patient-centered care should be incorporated into all phases of student learning.
学生对以病人为中心的护理态度:传统课程与综合课程的比较研究
背景:以患者为中心的护理是所有医学学科治疗的重点,更有利于提高护理效果。现在强调的是,这种以病人为中心的护理能力应该在本科阶段发展。希望随着时间的推移和经验的积累,医学生可以在临床实践中培养这种能力。关于医学生对以病人为中心的护理态度的数据是可变的。此外,关于哪种课程(即传统课程与综合课程)能提高这种素质的比较数据也不足。目的比较综合课程医学生与传统课程医学生对“以病人为中心的护理”的态度。方法于2017年6月至12月在Liaquat国立医院和医学院进行横断面比较研究。抽样方法为非概率方便抽样。计算的样本量为每组110名参与者。A组为毕业班医学生(传统课程),B组为毕业班医学生(综合课程)。同意后,给学生一份有效的问卷,即病人-医生取向量表(PPOS)。数据采用SPSS version 23进行分析。采用描述性分析计算集中趋势和标准差,并采用学生t检验。p值为0.05被认为是显著的。结果参与研究的350名学生中,男性占29.14%(102/350),女性占70.85%(248/350)。平均年龄21.99±1.73岁。传统课程医学生的PPOS总分显著高于综合课程医学生。女性的得分也明显高于男性(p=0.04)。结论应重新审视医学综合课程,并将促进以患者为中心的护理策略纳入学生学习的各个阶段。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信