Comparison of horizontal and traditional block family medicine curricula: Canadian study.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Miriam Lacasse, Jean-Sébastien Renaud, Batya Grundland, Maria M Hubinette, Fok-Han Leung, Theresa van der Goes
{"title":"Comparison of horizontal and traditional block family medicine curricula: Canadian study.","authors":"Miriam Lacasse, Jean-Sébastien Renaud, Batya Grundland, Maria M Hubinette, Fok-Han Leung, Theresa van der Goes","doi":"10.46747/cfp.710708500","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Longitudinal curriculum model outcomes in postgraduate medical education are not well documented. The authors aimed to compare satisfaction, learning, clinical exposure, and practice intentions between longitudinal family medicine (FM) curricula and traditional rotational (\"block\") curricula.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This curriculum structure evaluation used a retrospective quasi-experimental study design using data from the College of Family Physicians of Canada Family Medicine Longitudinal Survey.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>The project used data from 3 FM residency programs for the entry years 2014 to 2017.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>A total of 1283 residents across 49 teaching sites were invited to participate at program entry (T1) and residency completion (T2).</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Data were categorized by horizontal curriculum or block curriculum. The authors used the Kirkpatrick taxonomy to compare satisfaction with the curriculum, learning, behaviour (ie, clinical exposure), and results (practice intention). One-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) tested the effect of curriculum model on satisfaction and clinical exposure. Analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) tested the effect of curriculum model on the other outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Residents from 40 teaching sites provided answers to T1 and T2 surveys (N=385: 81 in the horizontal curriculum and 304 in the block curriculum). The average satisfaction score was lower in block curricula (4.28/5 [SD=0.47]) than in horizontal curricula (4.46 [SD=0.42]) (<i>F</i> <sub>1,382</sub>=9.39, <i>P</i>=.002, η<sup>2</sup>=.02). The curriculum structure had no significant impact on learning and on most items in the clinical exposure or practice intention categories.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Longitudinal curriculum models in residency might be associated with better resident experience. However, curriculum models do not have a significant impact on most educational outcomes, and residents from all curriculum models feel similarly prepared for practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":55288,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Family Physician","volume":"71 7-8","pages":"500-510"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Family Physician","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46747/cfp.710708500","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Longitudinal curriculum model outcomes in postgraduate medical education are not well documented. The authors aimed to compare satisfaction, learning, clinical exposure, and practice intentions between longitudinal family medicine (FM) curricula and traditional rotational ("block") curricula.

Design: This curriculum structure evaluation used a retrospective quasi-experimental study design using data from the College of Family Physicians of Canada Family Medicine Longitudinal Survey.

Setting: The project used data from 3 FM residency programs for the entry years 2014 to 2017.

Participants: A total of 1283 residents across 49 teaching sites were invited to participate at program entry (T1) and residency completion (T2).

Main outcome measures: Data were categorized by horizontal curriculum or block curriculum. The authors used the Kirkpatrick taxonomy to compare satisfaction with the curriculum, learning, behaviour (ie, clinical exposure), and results (practice intention). One-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) tested the effect of curriculum model on satisfaction and clinical exposure. Analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) tested the effect of curriculum model on the other outcomes.

Results: Residents from 40 teaching sites provided answers to T1 and T2 surveys (N=385: 81 in the horizontal curriculum and 304 in the block curriculum). The average satisfaction score was lower in block curricula (4.28/5 [SD=0.47]) than in horizontal curricula (4.46 [SD=0.42]) (F 1,382=9.39, P=.002, η2=.02). The curriculum structure had no significant impact on learning and on most items in the clinical exposure or practice intention categories.

Conclusion: Longitudinal curriculum models in residency might be associated with better resident experience. However, curriculum models do not have a significant impact on most educational outcomes, and residents from all curriculum models feel similarly prepared for practice.

横向与传统块式家庭医学课程的比较:加拿大研究。
目的:纵向课程模式在研究生医学教育中的效果并没有很好的文献记录。作者旨在比较纵向家庭医学(FM)课程和传统轮转(“块”)课程之间的满意度、学习、临床暴露和实践意图。设计:本课程结构评估采用回顾性准实验研究设计,数据来自加拿大家庭医学纵向调查的家庭医生学院。背景:该项目使用了2014年至2017年3个FM住院医师项目的数据。参与者:共有1283名来自49个教学点的居民被邀请参加项目进入(T1)和居住完成(T2)。主要结果测量:数据按横向课程或块课程分类。作者使用Kirkpatrick分类法来比较课程、学习、行为(即临床暴露)和结果(实践意图)的满意度。单因素方差分析(ANOVAs)检验课程模式对满意度和临床暴露的影响。协方差分析(ANCOVAs)检验了课程模式对其他结果的影响。结果:来自40个教学点的居民回答了T1和T2的调查(N=385,横向课程81,块式课程304)。分组课程的平均满意度得分(4.28/5 [SD=0.47])低于水平课程的平均满意度得分(4.46 [SD=0.42]) (F 1382 =9.39, P= 0.42)。002年,η2 = .02点)。课程结构对学习和临床暴露或实践意向类别的大多数项目没有显著影响。结论:住院医师纵向课程模式可能与更好的住院医师体验有关。然而,课程模式对大多数教育成果没有显著的影响,所有课程模式的居民都对实践有相似的准备。
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
Canadian Family Physician
Canadian Family Physician 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
9.70%
发文量
262
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Mission: Canadian Family Physician (CFP), a peer-reviewed medical journal, is the official publication of the College of Family Physicians of Canada. Our mission is to ensure that practitioners, researchers, educators and policy makers are informed on current issues and in touch with the latest thinking in the discipline of family medicine; to serve family physicians in all types of practice in every part of Canada in both official languages; to advance the continuing development of family medicine as a discipline; and to contribute to the ongoing improvement of patient care.
×
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