<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/rss.css" type="text/css"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
    xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:extra="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
    xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/basic/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
    <channel rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/feeds/editorspicks?journal=bmcmededuc&amp;quantity=">
        <title>Editor's picks</title>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcmededuc/</link>
        <description>The editor's pick of recent articles published by BMC Medical Education</description>
        <dc:date>2012-04-03T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <items>
            <rdf:Seq>
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/12/19" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/12/18" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/12/17" />
                            </rdf:Seq>
        </items>
                 <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </channel>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/12/19">
        <title>Do you think it&apos;s a disease? A survey of medical students</title>
        <description>Background:
The management of medical conditions is influenced by whether clinicians regard them as &quot;disease&quot; or &quot;not a disease&quot;. The aim of the survey was to determine how medical students classify a range of conditions they might encounter in their professional lives and whether a different name for a condition would influence their decision in the categorisation of the condition as a &apos;disease&apos; or &apos;not a disease&apos;.
Methods:
We surveyed 3 concurrent years of medical students to classify 36 candidate conditions into &quot;disease&quot; and &quot;non-disease&quot;. The conditions were given a &apos;medical&apos; label and a (lay) label and positioned where possible in alternate columns of the survey.
Results:
The response rate was 96% (183 of 190 students attending a lecture): 80% of students concurred on 16 conditions as &quot;disease&quot; (eg diabetes, tuberculosis), and 4 as &quot;non-disease&quot; (eg baldness, menopause, fractured skull and heat stroke). The remaining 16 conditions (with 21-79% agreement) were more contentious (especially obesity, infertility, hay fever, alcoholism, and restless leg syndrome). Three pairs of conditions had both a more, and a less, medical label: the more medical labels (myalgic encephalomyelitis, hypertension, and erectile dysfunction) were more frequently classified as &apos;disease&apos; than the less medical (chronic fatigue syndrome, high blood pressure, and impotence), respectively, significantly different for the first two pairs.
Conclusions:
Some conditions excluded from the classification of &quot;disease&quot; were unexpected (eg fractured skull and heat stroke). Students were mostly concordant on what conditions should be classified as &quot;disease&quot;. They were more likely to classify synonyms as &apos;disease&apos; if the label was medical. The findings indicate there is still a problem 30 years on in the concept of &apos;what is a disease&apos;. Our findings suggest that we should be addressing such concepts to medical students.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/12/19</link>
                <dc:creator>Chrissy Erueti</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Paul Glasziou</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Chris Del Mar</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Mieke L Van Driel</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medical Education 2012, 12:19</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2012-04-03T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>10.1186/1472-6920-12-19</dc:identifier>
                            <dc:title>A survey of students: what is a disease?</dc:title>
                            <dc:description>Medical students vary in how they conceptualize disease; while diabetes, for example, is uniformly interpreted as a disease and baldness is not, conditions such as obesity, alcoholism, and infertility are more contentious.</dc:description>
                <prism:require>/content/figures/1472-6920-12-19-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>BMC Medical Education</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1472-6920</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>12</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>19</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2012-04-03T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/12/18">
        <title>Acceptance of technology-enhanced learning for a theoretical radiological science course: a randomized controlled trial</title>
        <description>Background:
Technology-enhanced learning (TEL) gives a view to improved education. However, there is a need to clarify how TEL can be used effectively. The study compared students&apos; attitudes and opinions towards a traditional face-to-face course on theoretical radiological science and a TEL course where students could combine face-to-face lectures and e-learning modules at their best convenience.
Methods:
42 third-year dental students were randomly assigned to the traditional face-to-face group and the TEL group. Both groups completed questionnaires before the beginning and after completion of the course on attitudes and opinions towards a traditional face-to-face lectures and technology-enhanced learning. After completion of the course both groups also filled in the validated German-language TRIL (Trierer Inventar zur Lehrevaluation) questionnaire for the evaluation of courses given at universities.
Results:
Both groups had a positive attitude towards e-learning that did not change over time. The TEL group attended significantly less face-to-face lectures than the traditional group. However, both groups stated that face-to-face lectures were the basis for education in a theoretical radiological science course.The members of the TEL group rated e-mail reminders significantly more important when they filled in the questionnaire on attitudes and opinions towards a traditional face-to-face lectures and technology-enhanced learning for the second time after completion of the course.The members of the technology-enhanced learning group were significantly less confident in passing the exam compared to the members of the traditional group. However, examination results did not differ significantly for traditional and the TEL group.
Conclusions:
It seems that technology-enhanced learning in a theoretical radiological science course has the potential to reduce the need for face-to-face lectures. At the same time examination results are not impaired. However, technology-enhanced learning cannot completely replace traditional face-to-face lectures, because students indicate that they consider traditional teaching as the basis of their education.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/12/18</link>
                <dc:creator>Emeka Nkenke</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Elefterios Vairaktaris</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Anne Bauersachs</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Stephan Eitner</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Alexander Budach</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Christoph Knipfer</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Florian Stelzle</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medical Education 2012, 12:18</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2012-03-30T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>10.1186/1472-6920-12-18</dc:identifier>
                            <dc:title>Enhanced learning cannot replace lectures</dc:title>
                            <dc:description>Students enrolled in a technology-enhanced learning course in dental radiology are less confident in passing an exam and believe that face-to-face lectures form the fundamental basis in theoretical radiology education.</dc:description>
                <prism:require>/content/figures/1472-6920-12-18-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>BMC Medical Education</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1472-6920</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>12</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>18</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2012-03-30T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/12/17">
        <title>&quot;What Do They Want Me To Say?&quot; The hidden curriculum at work in the medical school selection process: a qualitative study</title>
        <description>Background:
There has been little study of the role of the essay question in selection for medical school. The purpose of this study was to obtain a better understanding of how applicants approached the essay questions used in selection at our medical school in 2007.
Methods:
The authors conducted a qualitative analysis of 210 essays written as part of the medical school admissions process, and developed a conceptual framework to describe the relationships, ideas and concepts observed in the data.
Results:
Findings of this analysis were confirmed in interviews with applicants and assessors. Analysis revealed a tension between &quot;genuine&quot; and &quot;expected&quot; responses that we believe applicants experience when choosing how to answer questions in the admissions process. A theory named &quot;What do they want me to say?&quot; was developed to describe the ways in which applicants modulate their responses to conform to their expectations of the selection process; the elements of this theory were confirmed in interviews with applicants and assessors.
Conclusions:
This work suggests the existence of a &quot;hidden curriculum of admissions&quot; and demonstrates that the process of selection has a strong influence on applicant response. This paper suggests ways that selection might be modified to address this effect. Studies such as this can help us to appreciate the unintended consequences of admissions processes and can identify ways to make the selection process more consistent, transparent and fair.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/12/17</link>
                <dc:creator>Jonathan White</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Keith Brownell</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jean-Francois Lemay</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jocelyn M Lockyer</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medical Education 2012, 12:17</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2012-03-26T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>10.1186/1472-6920-12-17</dc:identifier>
                            <dc:title>A hidden curriculum of admissions</dc:title>
                            <dc:description>Medical school applicants demonstrate a conflict between &quot;genuine&quot; and &quot;expected&quot; responses to admission essays and often modulate their responses to conform to what they believe are the expectations of those handling the selection process.</dc:description>
                <prism:require>/content/figures/1472-6920-12-17-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>BMC Medical Education</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1472-6920</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>12</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>17</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2012-03-26T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <cc:License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks" />
    </cc:License>
</rdf:RDF>

