4.5 Article

Construction and evaluation of a web-based interactive prescribing curriculum for senior medical students

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 62, 期 6, 页码 653-659

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2006.02651.x

关键词

curriculum; medical schools; prescribing; student education

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims. To develop and evaluate for the National Prescribing Service (NPS) a web-based interactive prescribing curriculum for Australian senior medical students based on the World Health Organization's Guide to Good Prescribing. Methods. Teachers of prescribing from all Australian medical schools in 2000 wrote 12 case-based modules which were converted to on-line format. Objective evidence was provided for selecting first-line medicines from available alternatives by comparing efficacy, safety, convenience and cost. The curriculum was made available to final year students in 2001 and was evaluated by measuring use from web statistics and by semistructured interviews with 15 teachers (2003) and on-line surveys of 363 students over 2003 and 2004. Results. By 2004 the curriculum was used by nine of 11 possible medical schools. Uptake increased each year from 2001 and all 12 modules were accessed consistently. Student access was significantly (P < 0.001) greater when prescribing was an assessable part of their course. Teachers' evaluations were uniformly supportive and the curriculum is seen as a valuable resource. Student responses came from a small proportion of those with password access but were also supportive. Over half of student respondents had created their own evidence-based formulary. Conclusions. A collaborative venture initiated by the NPS with Australian medical schools has been successfully implemented in most courses. Teachers find the resource of high quality. Student respondents find the curriculum valuable in developing their own prescribing skills. It is best delivered by self-directed study followed by tutorial discussion of prescribing decisions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据