学生对荷兰国家药物治疗评估的看法,这是一项针对最后一年医科学生的全国性调查研究。

IF 4.2 3区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
European journal of pharmacology Pub Date : 2025-02-15 Epub Date: 2025-01-09 DOI:10.1016/j.ejphar.2025.177266
Erik M Donker, Floor van Rosse, Ben J A Janssen, Wilma Knol, Glenn Dumont, Jeroen van Smeden, Roya Atiqi, Marleen Hessel, Milan C Richir, Michiel A van Agtmael, Cornelis Kramers, Jelle Tichelaar
{"title":"学生对荷兰国家药物治疗评估的看法,这是一项针对最后一年医科学生的全国性调查研究。","authors":"Erik M Donker, Floor van Rosse, Ben J A Janssen, Wilma Knol, Glenn Dumont, Jeroen van Smeden, Roya Atiqi, Marleen Hessel, Milan C Richir, Michiel A van Agtmael, Cornelis Kramers, Jelle Tichelaar","doi":"10.1016/j.ejphar.2025.177266","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The Dutch National Pharmacotherapy Assessment (DNPA) was introduced in 2013 to improve clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CPT) education. This study investigated final-year medical students' perceived motivation and level of preparation for the DNPA in different scenarios: mandatory vs. non-mandatory, and traditional high-stakes assessment programme vs. programmatic assessment programme.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this survey study, students from four Dutch medical schools participated. In two medical schools the DNPA is a mandatory assessment in a programmatic assessment programme, and in two schools it is a mandatory, high-stakes assessment in a traditional assessment programme. The questionnaire included six 5-point Likert-type questions, and one open-ended question.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 142 final-year medical students completed the survey. Their overall satisfaction with and current preparation for the DNPA was good (both median scores were 4 out of 5), without differences between students with a traditional or programmatic assessment programme. The majority of the students said they would be more (or much more) motivated (62.7%) and prepared (59.2%) if the DNPA were a high-stakes assessment rather than a programmatic assessment; the non-mandatory or mandatory nature of the assessment would only modestly affect their motivation and preparation (62.7% of the students would be less or similar motivated, 74.6% less or similar prepared). Students opined that the DNPA should be given earlier in the curriculum, together with more dedicated CPT education.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While students expressed a greater motivation and preparation when having a high-stakes assessment, and almost a similar motivation and preparation for mandatory and non-mandatory assessments, there were no notable differences in their current perceived motivation and preparation across medical schools with different assessment programmes. This suggests that students appreciate the importance of the DNPA assessment, being almost similarly motivated to prepare for the assessment regardless of whether it is mandatory or non-mandatory or a programmatic or high-stakes assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":12004,"journal":{"name":"European journal of pharmacology","volume":" ","pages":"177266"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Students' perspective on the Dutch National Pharmacotherapy Assessment, a national survey study among final-year medical students.\",\"authors\":\"Erik M Donker, Floor van Rosse, Ben J A Janssen, Wilma Knol, Glenn Dumont, Jeroen van Smeden, Roya Atiqi, Marleen Hessel, Milan C Richir, Michiel A van Agtmael, Cornelis Kramers, Jelle Tichelaar\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ejphar.2025.177266\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The Dutch National Pharmacotherapy Assessment (DNPA) was introduced in 2013 to improve clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CPT) education. This study investigated final-year medical students' perceived motivation and level of preparation for the DNPA in different scenarios: mandatory vs. non-mandatory, and traditional high-stakes assessment programme vs. programmatic assessment programme.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this survey study, students from four Dutch medical schools participated. In two medical schools the DNPA is a mandatory assessment in a programmatic assessment programme, and in two schools it is a mandatory, high-stakes assessment in a traditional assessment programme. The questionnaire included six 5-point Likert-type questions, and one open-ended question.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 142 final-year medical students completed the survey. Their overall satisfaction with and current preparation for the DNPA was good (both median scores were 4 out of 5), without differences between students with a traditional or programmatic assessment programme. The majority of the students said they would be more (or much more) motivated (62.7%) and prepared (59.2%) if the DNPA were a high-stakes assessment rather than a programmatic assessment; the non-mandatory or mandatory nature of the assessment would only modestly affect their motivation and preparation (62.7% of the students would be less or similar motivated, 74.6% less or similar prepared). Students opined that the DNPA should be given earlier in the curriculum, together with more dedicated CPT education.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While students expressed a greater motivation and preparation when having a high-stakes assessment, and almost a similar motivation and preparation for mandatory and non-mandatory assessments, there were no notable differences in their current perceived motivation and preparation across medical schools with different assessment programmes. This suggests that students appreciate the importance of the DNPA assessment, being almost similarly motivated to prepare for the assessment regardless of whether it is mandatory or non-mandatory or a programmatic or high-stakes assessment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12004,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European journal of pharmacology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"177266\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European journal of pharmacology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejphar.2025.177266\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejphar.2025.177266","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

荷兰国家药物治疗评估(DNPA)于2013年推出,旨在改善临床药理学和治疗学(CPT)教育。本研究调查了医学生在不同情境下对DNPA的感知动机和准备水平:强制性与非强制性、传统高风险评估方案与程序性评估方案。方法:对荷兰四所医学院的学生进行问卷调查。在两所医学院,DNPA是方案评估方案中的强制性评估,在两所学校,它是传统评估方案中的强制性高风险评估。调查问卷包括6个李克特式的5分式问题和一个开放式问题。结果:共有142名医学生完成调查。他们对DNPA的总体满意度和目前的准备工作都很好(两项中位数得分均为4分,满分为5分),在传统评估课程和程序性评估课程的学生之间没有差异。大多数学生表示,如果DNPA是高风险评估而不是程序性评估,他们会更有动力(或更有准备)(62.7%)和准备(59.2%);评估的非强制性或强制性只会轻微影响他们的动机和准备(62.7%的学生动机较少或相似,74.6%的学生动机较少或相似)。学生们认为,应在课程设置的较早阶段开设DNPA课程,以及更专门的CPT教育。结论:虽然学生在进行高风险评估时表现出更大的动机和准备,并且对强制性和非强制性评估的动机和准备几乎相似,但在不同评估方案的医学院之间,他们目前感知的动机和准备没有显着差异。这表明学生认识到DNPA评估的重要性,无论它是强制性的还是非强制性的,或者是程序性的还是高风险的评估,他们都几乎同样有动力为评估做准备。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Students' perspective on the Dutch National Pharmacotherapy Assessment, a national survey study among final-year medical students.

Introduction: The Dutch National Pharmacotherapy Assessment (DNPA) was introduced in 2013 to improve clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CPT) education. This study investigated final-year medical students' perceived motivation and level of preparation for the DNPA in different scenarios: mandatory vs. non-mandatory, and traditional high-stakes assessment programme vs. programmatic assessment programme.

Methods: In this survey study, students from four Dutch medical schools participated. In two medical schools the DNPA is a mandatory assessment in a programmatic assessment programme, and in two schools it is a mandatory, high-stakes assessment in a traditional assessment programme. The questionnaire included six 5-point Likert-type questions, and one open-ended question.

Results: A total of 142 final-year medical students completed the survey. Their overall satisfaction with and current preparation for the DNPA was good (both median scores were 4 out of 5), without differences between students with a traditional or programmatic assessment programme. The majority of the students said they would be more (or much more) motivated (62.7%) and prepared (59.2%) if the DNPA were a high-stakes assessment rather than a programmatic assessment; the non-mandatory or mandatory nature of the assessment would only modestly affect their motivation and preparation (62.7% of the students would be less or similar motivated, 74.6% less or similar prepared). Students opined that the DNPA should be given earlier in the curriculum, together with more dedicated CPT education.

Conclusion: While students expressed a greater motivation and preparation when having a high-stakes assessment, and almost a similar motivation and preparation for mandatory and non-mandatory assessments, there were no notable differences in their current perceived motivation and preparation across medical schools with different assessment programmes. This suggests that students appreciate the importance of the DNPA assessment, being almost similarly motivated to prepare for the assessment regardless of whether it is mandatory or non-mandatory or a programmatic or high-stakes assessment.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
572
审稿时长
34 days
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Pharmacology publishes research papers covering all aspects of experimental pharmacology with focus on the mechanism of action of structurally identified compounds affecting biological systems. The scope includes: Behavioural pharmacology Neuropharmacology and analgesia Cardiovascular pharmacology Pulmonary, gastrointestinal and urogenital pharmacology Endocrine pharmacology Immunopharmacology and inflammation Molecular and cellular pharmacology Regenerative pharmacology Biologicals and biotherapeutics Translational pharmacology Nutriceutical pharmacology.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信