4.6 Article

A medical humanities special study module on principles of medical theory and practice at the Charite, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany

期刊

ACADEMIC MEDICINE
卷 78, 期 10, 页码 1031-1035

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00001888-200310000-00019

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The authors are members of a committee in charge of a special study module (SSM) entitled Principles of Medical Theory and Practice in a problem-based and integrated reformed curriculum track at the Charite, the medical school and university hospital of the Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany. The SSM contextualizes medicine by highlighting the societal contexts of the doctor-patient relationship and the medical profession. Integrating the humanities into medical education helps students develop an awareness of the strengths and limitations of modem medicine, develop their own personalities and sense of social responsibility, and generally broaden their outlook. Teachers in the SSM seminars are from different disciplines, such as the history of medicine, bioethics, sociology, anthropology, and complementary medicine. Once a week, one or two teachers meet with as many as 21 students per group for a 90-minute course. Twelve courses constitute a seminar. Students are required to participate in four seminars during five years of studies. They can choose different topics from a set range. Although this SSM has been largely successful, some problems have occurred. Results from the course evaluations and experiences show that the seminars differ from one another in many ways. Financial restraints and the departmental structure of the faculty have influenced implementation of the SSM. However, the SSM is a new concept and is continuously reviewed and renewed. Future plans will be to specify outcomes, continue to discuss reasonable seminar topics, establish continuous support and training for teachers, and motivate students to become actively involved in the seminar discussions.

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

4.6
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