Ethics teaching in a medical education environment: preferences for diversity of learning and assessment methods

48Citations
Citations of this article
182Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Ethics and professionalism are an integral part of medical school curricula; however, medical students' views on these topics have not been assessed in many countries. Objective: The study aimed to examine medical students' perceptions toward ethics and professionalism teaching, and its learning and assessment methods. Design: A self-administered questionnaire eliciting views on professionalism and ethics education was distributed to a total of 128 final-year medical students. Results: A total of 108 students completed the survey, with an 84% response rate. Medical students reported frequently encountering ethical conflicts during training but stated only a moderate level of ethics training at medical school (mean = 5.14 ± 1.8). They noted that their education had helped somewhat to deal with ethical conflicts (mean = 5.39 ± 2.0). Students strongly affirmed the importance of ethics education (mean = 7.63 ± 1.03) and endorsed the value of positive role models (mean = 7.45 ± 1.5) as the preferred learning method. The cohort voiced interest in direct faculty supervision as an approach to assessment of knowledge and skills (mean = 7.62 ± 1.26). Female students perceived greater need for more ethics education compared to males (p = < 0.05). Students who claimed that they had experienced some unprofessional treatment had a more limited view of the importance of ethics as a subject (P = 0.001). Conclusion: Medical students viewed ethics education positively and preferred clinically attuned methods for learning.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

AlMahmoud, T., Jawad Hashim, M., Elzubeir, M. A., & Branicki, F. (2017). Ethics teaching in a medical education environment: preferences for diversity of learning and assessment methods. Medical Education Online, 22(1), 1328257. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2017.1328257

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free