RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Real patient encounters before the clinical phase of undergraduate medical education are recommended to stimulate integration of theory and practice. Such encounters are not easy to integrate into the three phases of the problem-based learning cycle, i.e. preparation, self-study and reporting. The authors studied students' perceptions of problem-based learning with real patient encounters as the starting point for learning. METHOD: Students' perceptions of the programme with real patients were evaluated by means of a questionnaire. Mean item scores on a five-point Likert scale and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: Students showed satisfaction with the patient encounters and said they learned a lot from them. Reporting was also highly rated, particularly the integration of theory and practice. Preparation and self-study received lower scores. DISCUSSION: The findings support the view that real patient encounters can act as a powerful driving force for learning and enhance integration of theory and practice. Student learning might benefit from: better information to students and teachers regarding educational objectives, teacher training and careful selection of patients. In order to gain more insight into learning from patient encounters, further studies should address students' and teachers' views and behaviours in respect of this type of learning.
Asunto(s)
Actitud del Personal de Salud , Curriculum , Pacientes , Aprendizaje Basado en Problemas , Estudiantes de Medicina/psicología , Humanos , Aprendizaje Basado en Problemas/normas , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Medical education should prepare students for future clinical practice. However, this preparation is inadequate for the most prevalent problem in health care: chronic disease. This applies to the continuous aspect of chronic disease. Within the context of a newly developed programme, we investigated what makes a chronic patient interesting in the eyes of medical students, what they learned from a specific programme in which each student had contact with a chronic patient 4 times in 8 months, and what they learned from their patients. METHODS: A total of 240 Year 3 students were enrolled in the programme, 89 of whom filled in questionnaires at both the start and end of the programme. Topics included the characteristics of the ideal and the actual patient, the Ideal Physician Questionnaire, and several questions on the expected and actual amount of knowledge gained from the patient. RESULTS: Students preferred patients who demonstrated clear symptoms and had frequent contacts with health care professionals during the programme to 'well adapted' patients. The perceived knowledge obtained from the patient was less than they had expected at the start of the programme. A didactic gain perceived as low was mainly due to low expectations of gaining knowledge at the start of the programme, a doctor-centred attitude and a high level of discrepancy between the student's ideal patient and the actual patient. CONCLUSIONS: Programmes that aim to present chronic patients to medical students focus on patient selection so that patients who differ only very slightly from healthy persons are eliminated. In addition, realistic information on the types of patients with whom students can expect to have contact may help students appreciate the knowledge to be gained from these patients.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedad Crónica , Educación de Pregrado en Medicina , Estudiantes de Medicina/psicología , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Actitud del Personal de Salud , Niño , Preescolar , Femenino , Humanos , Lactante , Relaciones Interpersonales , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Países Bajos , Selección de Paciente , PercepciónRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To compare the therapeutic effects of physical fitness training or biofeedback training with the results of usual care in patients with fibromyalgia (FM). METHODS: One hundred forty-three female patients with FM (American College of Rheumatology criteria) were randomized into 3 groups: a fitness program (n = 58), biofeedback training (n = 56), or controls (n = 29). Half the patients in the active treatment groups also received an educational program aimed at improving compliance. Assessments were done at baseline and after 24 weeks. The primary outcome was pain [visual analog scale (VAS)]. Other endpoints were the number of tender points, total myalgic score (dolorimetry), physical fitness, functional ability (Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale and Sickness Impact Profile), psychological distress (Symptom Checklist-90-Revised), patient global assessment (5 point scale), and general fatigue (VAS). RESULTS: Baseline scores were similar in all 3 groups. Altogether 25 (17.5%) patients dropped out; they were similarly distributed over all groups: 14 patients after randomization and 11 (8%) during the study. A true high impact level for fitness training was not attained by any patient. After treatment, no significant differences in change scores of any outcome were found between the groups (ANOVA, p > 0.05). All outcome measures showed large variations intra- and interindividually. The educational program did not result in higher compliance with training sessions (62% vs 71%). Analysis of the subgroup of subjects with a high attendance rate (> 67%) also showed no improvement. CONCLUSION: In terms of training intensity and maximal heart rates, the high impact fitness intervention had a low impact benefit. Therefore effectiveness of high impact physical fitness training cannot be demonstrated. Thus compared to usual care, the fitness training (i.e., low impact) and biofeedback training had no clear beneficial effects on objective or subjective patient outcomes in patients with FM.
Asunto(s)
Biorretroalimentación Psicológica , Terapia por Ejercicio , Fibromialgia/terapia , Aptitud Física , Adulto , Ejercicio Físico , Femenino , Estado de Salud , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Cooperación del Paciente , Pacientes Desistentes del Tratamiento , Educación del Paciente como Asunto , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of training in fibromyalgia (FM), we compared the effects of high intensity fitness training (HIF) and low intensity fitness training (LIF). METHODS: Thirty-seven female patients with FM were randomly allocated to either a HIF group (n = 19) or a LIF group (n = 18). Four patients (1 HIF group, 3 LIF group) refused to participate after randomization but before the start of the intervention. They were excluded from the analysis. Assessments were performed at baseline and after 20 weeks of HIF or LIF. The primary outcome was patient's global assessment [on 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS)]. Secondary endpoints were pain, number of tender points, total myalgic score, physical fitness, health status, and psychological distress. RESULTS: One patient in the HIF group (n = 18) and 2 in the LIF group (n = 15) stopped training sessions during the course of the study. Nine of 18 patients in the HIF group compared to 8 of 15 patients in the LIF group achieved a participation rate of 67% or more. Most important reasons for nonadherence were postexercise pain and fatigue, time consumption, and stress. The VAS for global well being improved slightly from 64 to 56 mm in the HIF group, and did not change in the LIF group (58 to 61 mm) (p = 0.07). The Wmax (physical fitness) changed modestly from 110 to 123 watt in the HIF group, and from 97 to 103 watt in the LIF group (p = 0.3). VAS for pain increased from 53 to 64 mm in the HIF group and from 52 to 54 mm in the LIF group. The large standard deviations around mean change in global assessments, number of tender points, total myalgic score, and psychological distress (by SCL-90) severely influenced the power to detect within- and between-group differences. Analysis limited to those patients who accomplished a high attendance rate (> 67%) showed similar results. CONCLUSION: High intensity physical fitness training compared to low intensity physical fitness training leads to only modest improvements in physical fitness and general well being in patients with FM, and does not positively affect psychological status and general health.