<?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/latestarticles/journal?journal=bmcmededuc&amp;quantity=&amp;format=rss&amp;version=">
        <title>BMC Medical Education - Latest Articles</title>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcmededuc/</link>
        <description>The latest research articles published by BMC Medical Education</description>
        <dc:date>2009-11-16T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <items>
            <rdf:Seq>
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/9/68" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/9/67" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/9/66" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/9/65" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/9/64" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/9/63" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/9/62" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/9/61" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/9/60" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/9/59" />
                            </rdf:Seq>
        </items>
        <extra:info rdf:parseType="Literal">
            <html:div style="font:14px Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
                <html:span style="font-weight:bold">
                    This is an RSS newsfeed from BioMed Central
                </html:span>
                <html:br />
                <html:span style="font-size: 12px;">
                    It is intended to be used with an RSS reader. For more information about RSS newsfeeds from BioMed Central, visit
                    <html:br />
                    <html:a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/" style="color:#3333CC; font-size:12px;">
                        http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/
                    </html:a>
                    <html:br />
                </html:span>
            </html:div>
        </extra:info>
        <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </channel>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/9/68">
        <title>Experiences, attitudes and barriers towards research amongst junior faculty of Pakistani medical universities </title>
        <description>Background:
The developing world has had limited quality research and in Pakistan, research is still in its infancy. We conducted a study to assess the proportion of junior faculty involved in research to highlight their attitude towards research, and identify the factors associated with their research involvement.
Methods:
A cross-sectional study was conducted in four medical universities/teaching hospitals in Pakistan, representing private and public sectors. A pre-tested, self-administered questionnaire was used to collect information from 176 junior faculty members of studied universities/hospitals. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors related to attitudes and barriers in research among those currently involved in research with those who were not.
Results:
Overall, 41.5% of study subjects were currently involved in research. A highly  significant factor associated with current research involvement was research training during the post-graduate period (p&lt;0.001). Other factors associated with current involvement in research were male gender, working in the public sector and previous involvement in research. Overall, a large majority (85.2%) of doctors considered research helpful in their profession and had a positive attitude towards research; nevertheless this positive attitude was more frequently reported by doctors who were currently involved in research compared to those who were not (OR=4.69; 95% CI=1.54-14.26). Similarly, a large proportion (83.5%) of doctors considered research difficult to conduct; higher by doctors who were not presently involved in research (OR=2.74; 95% CI=1.20-6.22)
Conclusions:
Less than half of the study participants were currently involved in research. Research output may improve if identified barriers are rectified. Further studies are recommended in this area.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/9/68</link>
                <dc:creator>Saniya Sabzwari</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Samreen Kauser</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Ali Khuwaja</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medical Education 2009, 9:68</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-11-16T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1472-6920-9-68</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Medical Education</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1472-6920</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>9</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>68</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-11-16T00:00:00Z</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/1472-6920/9/67">
        <title>Graduate entry to medicine: widening psychological diversity. </title>
        <description>Background:
At Nottingham University more than 95% of entrants to the traditional 5-year medical course are school leavers.  Since 2003 we have admitted graduate entrants (GEM) to a shortened (4-year) course to &apos;widen access to students from more disadvantaged backgrounds&apos;.  We have recently shown that the GEM course widens academic and socio-demographic diversity of the medical student population.  This study explored whether GEM students also bring psychological diversity and whether this could be beneficial.
Methods:
We studied: a) 217 and 96 applicants to the Nottingham 5- and 4-year courses respectively, applying in the 2002-3 UCAS cycle, and, b) 246 school leavers starting the 5-year course and 39 graduate entrants to the 4-year course in October 2003.  The psychological profiles of the two groups of applicants and two groups of entrants were compared using their performance in the Goldberg &apos;Big 5&apos; Personality test, the Personal Qualities Assessment (PQA; measuring interpersonal traits and interpersonal values), and the Lovibond and Lovibond measure of depression, anxiety and stress.  For the comparison of the Entrants we excluded the 33 school leavers and seven graduates who took the tests as Applicants.Statistical analyses were undertaken using SPSS software (version 16.0).
Results:
Graduate applicants compared to school leaver applicants were significantly more conscientious, more confident, more self controlled, more communitarian in moral orientation and less anxious.  Only one of these differences was preserved in the entrants with graduates being less anxious.  However, the graduate entrants were significantly less empathetic and conscientious than the school leavers.
Conclusions:
This study has shown that school leaver and graduate entrants to medical school differ in some psychological characteristics.  However, if confirmed in other studies and if they were manifest in the extreme, not all the traits brought by graduates would be desirable for someone aiming for a medical career.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/9/67</link>
                <dc:creator>David James</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Eamonn Ferguson</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>David Powis</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Miles Bore</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Don Munro</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Ian Symonds</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Janet Yates</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medical Education 2009, 9:67</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-11-13T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1472-6920-9-67</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Medical Education</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1472-6920</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>9</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>67</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-11-13T00:00:00Z</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/1472-6920/9/66">
        <title>A descriptive study of medical educators&apos; views of problem-based learning</title>
        <description>Background:
There is a growing amount of literature on the benefits and drawbacks of Problem-Based Learning (PBL) compared to conventional curricula. However, it seems that PBL research studies do not provide information rigorously and formally that can contribute to making evidence-based medical education decisions. The authors performed an investigation aimed at medical education scholars around the question, &quot;What are the views of medical educators concerning the PBL approach?&quot;
Methods:
After framing the question, the method of data collection relied on asking medical educators to report their views on PBL. Two methods were used for collecting data: the questionnaire survey and an online discussion forum.
Results:
The descriptive analysis of the study showed that many participants value the PBL approach in the practice and training of doctors. However, some participants hold contrasting views upon the importance of the PBL approach in basic medical education. For example, more than a third of participants (38.5%) had a neutral stance on PBL as a student-oriented educational approach. The same proportion of participants also had a neutral view of the efficiency of traditional learning compared to a PBL tutorial. The open-ended question explored the importance of faculty development in PBL. A few participants had negative perceptions of the epistemological assumptions of PBL. Two themes emerged from the analysis of the forum repliers: the importance of the faculty role and self-managed education.
Conclusion:
Whilst many participants valued the importance of the PBL approach in the practice and training of doctors and agreed with most of the conventional descriptions of PBL, some participants held contrasting views on the importance of the PBL approach in undergraduate medical education. However there was a strong view concerning the importance of facilitator training. More research is needed to understand the process of PBL better.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/9/66</link>
                <dc:creator>Mohsen Tavakol</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Reg Dennick</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Sina Tavakol</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medical Education 2009, 9:66</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-11-04T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1472-6920-9-66</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Medical Education</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1472-6920</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>9</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>66</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-11-04T00:00:00Z</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/1472-6920/9/65">
        <title>Relationship of creative projects in anatomy to medical student professionalism, test performance and stress: an exploratory study</title>
        <description>Background:
The anatomy course offers important opportunities to develop professionalism at an early stage in medical education. It is an academically significant course that also engenders stress in some students.
Methods:
Over a three-year period, 115 of 297 students completed creative projects. Thirty-four project completers and 47 non-completers consented to participate in the study. Projects were analyzed for professionalism themes using grounded theory. A subset of project completers and non-completers were interviewed to determine their views about the stress of anatomy and medical school, as well as the value of the creative projects. We also compared test performance of project completers and non-completers.
Results:
Projects completed early in the course often expressed ambivalence about anatomy, whereas later projects showed more gratitude and sense of awe. Project completers tended to report greater stress than noncompleters, but stated that doing projects reduced stress and caused them to develop a richer appreciation for anatomy and medicine. Project completers performed significantly lower than non-completers on the first written exam (pre-project). Differences between groups on individual exams after both the first and second creative project were nonsignificant.
Conclusion:
For some students, creative projects may offer a useful way of reflecting on various aspects of professionalism while helping them to manage stress.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/9/65</link>
                <dc:creator>Johanna Shapiro</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Vincent Nguyen</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Sarah Mourra</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>John Boker</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Marianne Ross</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Trung Thai</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Robert Leonard</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medical Education 2009, 9:65</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-11-03T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1472-6920-9-65</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Medical Education</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1472-6920</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>9</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>65</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-11-03T00:00:00Z</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/1472-6920/9/64">
        <title> Graduates from a traditional medical curriculum evaluate the effectiveness of their medical curriculum through interviews. </title>
        <description>Background:
In 1996 The University of Liverpool reformed its medical course from a traditional lecture-based course to an integrated PBL curriculum. A project has been underway since 2000 to evaluate this change. Part of this project has involved gathering retrospective views on the relevance of both types of undergraduate education according to graduates. This paper focuses on the views of traditional Liverpool graduates approximately 6 years after graduation.
Methods:
From February 2006 to June 2006 interviews took place with 46 graduates from the last 2 cohorts to graduate from the traditional Liverpool curriculum.
Results:
The graduates were generally happy with their undergraduate education although they did feel there were some flaws in their curriculum. They felt they had picked up good history and examination skills and were content with their exposure to different specialties on clinical attachments. They were also pleased with their basic science teaching as preparation for postgraduate exams, however many complained about the overload and irrelevance of many lectures in the early years of their course, particular in biochemistry. There were many different views about how they integrated this science teaching into understanding disease processes and many didn&apos;t feel it was made relevant to them at the time they learned it. Retrospectively, they felt that they hadn&apos;t been clinically well prepared for the role of working as junior doctor, particularly the practical aspects of the job nor had enough exposure to research skills. Although there was little communication skills training in their course they didn&apos;t feel they would have benefited from this training as they managed to pick up had the required skills on clinical attachments.
Conclusion:
These interviews offer a historical snapshot of the views of graduates from a traditional course before many courses were reformed. There was some conflict in the interviews about the doctors enjoying their undergraduate education but then saying that they didn&apos;t feel they received good preparation for working as a junior doctor. Although the graduates were happy with their undergraduate education these interviews do highlight some of the reasons why the traditional curriculum was reformed at Liverpool.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/9/64</link>
                <dc:creator>Simon Watmough</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Helen O'Sullivan</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>David Taylor</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medical Education 2009, 9:64</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-10-26T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1472-6920-9-64</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Medical Education</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1472-6920</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>9</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>64</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-10-26T00:00:00Z</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/1472-6920/9/63">
        <title>A randomised-controlled trial of two educational modes for undergraduate evidence-based medicine learning in Asia</title>
        <description>Background:
As the overall evidence for the effectiveness of teaching of evidence based medicine (EBM) is not strong, and the impact of cultural and societal influences on teaching method is poorly understood, we undertook a randomised-controlled trial to test the effectiveness and learning satisfaction with two different EBM teaching methods (usual teaching vs. problem based learning (PBL)) for undergraduate medical students.
Methods:
A mixed methods study that included a randomised-controlled crossover trial with two intervention arms (usual teaching and PBL) and a nested qualitative study with focus groups to explore student perceptions of learning and to assess the effectiveness and utility of the two teaching methods.All 129 second-year medical students at the University of Hong Kong in 2007.The main outcomes measures were attitudes towards EBM; personal application and current use of EBM; EBM knowledge; future use of EBM.
Results:
PBL was less effective at imparting knowledge than usual teaching consisting of a lecture followed by a group tutorial. After usual teaching students showed improvement in scores for &apos;attitudes towards EBM&apos;, &apos;personal application and current use of EBM&apos; and &apos;EBM knowledge, which were not evident after PBL. In contrast to the usual teaching, students found PBL difficult as they lacked the statistical knowledge necessary to support discussion, failed to understand core concepts, and lost direction.
Conclusion:
The evidence presented here would suggest that the teaching of EBM within an Asian environment should adopt a format that facilitates both the acquisition of knowledge and encourages enquiry.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/9/63</link>
                <dc:creator>Janice Johnston</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>C Mary Schooling</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Gabriel Leung</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medical Education 2009, 9:63</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-09-29T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1472-6920-9-63</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Medical Education</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1472-6920</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>9</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>63</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-09-29T00:00:00Z</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/1472-6920/9/62">
        <title>Can ill-structured problems reveal beliefs about medical knowledge and knowing?
A focus-group approach.

</title>
        <description>Background:
Epistemological beliefs (EB) are an individual&apos;s cognitions about knowledge and knowing. In several non-medical domains, EB have been found to contribute to the way individuals reason when faced with ill-structured problems (i.e. problems with no clear-cut, right or wrong solutions). Such problems are very common in medical practice. Determining whether EB are also influential in reasoning processes with regard to medical issues to which there is no straightforward answer, could have implications for medical education. This study focused on 2 research questions: 1. Can ill-structured problems be used to elicit general practice trainees&apos; and trainers&apos; EB? and 2. What are the views of general practice trainees and trainers about knowledge and how do they justify knowing?
Methods:
2 focus groups of trainees (n = 18) were convened on 3 occasions during their 1st year of postgraduate GP training. 2 groups of GP trainers (n = 11) met on one occasion. Based on the methodology of the Reflective Judgement Interview (RJI), participants were asked to comment on 11 ill-structured problems. The sessions were audio taped and transcribed and an adapted version of the RJI scoring rules was used to assess the trainees&apos; reasoning about ill-structured problems.
Results:
Participants made a number of statements illustrating their EB and their importance in clinical reasoning. The level of EB varied widely form one meeting to another and depending on the problem addressed. Overall, the EB expressed by trainees did not differ from those of trainers except on a particular ill-structured problem regarding shoulder pain.
Conclusion:
The use of focus groups has entailed some difficulties in the interpretation of the results, but a number of preliminary conclusions can be drawn. Ill-structured medical problems can be used to elicit EB. Most trainees and trainers displayed pre-reflective and quasi-reflective EB. The way trainees and doctors view and justify knowledge are likely to be involved in medical reasoning processes.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/9/62</link>
                <dc:creator>Ann Roex</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Geraldine Clarebout</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Valerie Dory</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jan Degryse</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medical Education 2009, 9:62</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-09-23T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1472-6920-9-62</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Medical Education</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1472-6920</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>9</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>62</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-09-23T00:00:00Z</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/1472-6920/9/61">
        <title>Emotional intelligence and perceived stress in healthcare students: a multi-institutional, multi-professional survey</title>
        <description>Background:
Emotional intelligence (EI) is increasingly discussed as having a potential role in medicine, nursing, and other healthcare disciplines, both for personal mental health and professional practice. Stress has been identified as being high for students in healthcare courses. This study investigated whether EI and stress differed among students in four health professions (dental, nursing, graduate mental health workers, medical) and whether there was evidence that EI might serve as a buffer for stress.MethodThe Schutte Emotional Intelligence and the Perceived Stress scale instruments were administered to four groups of healthcare students in their first year of study in both the autumn and summer terms of the 2005-6 academic year. The groups were undergraduate dental, nursing and medical students, and postgraduate mental health workers.
Results:
No significant differences were found between males and females nor among professional groups for the EI measure. Dental students reported significantly higher stress than medical students. EI was found to be only moderately stable in test-retest scores. Some evidence was found for EI as a possible factor in mediating stress. Students in different health profession courses did not show significant differences in Emotional Intelligence.
Conclusion:
While stress and EI showed a moderate relationship, results of this study do not allow the direction of relationship to be determined. The limitations and further research questions raised in this study are discussed along with the need for refinement of the EI construct and measures, particularly if Emotional Intelligence were to be considered as a possible selection criterion, as has been suggested by some authors.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/9/61</link>
                <dc:creator>Yvonne Birks</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jean McKendree</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Ian Watt</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medical Education 2009, 9:61</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-09-17T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1472-6920-9-61</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Medical Education</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1472-6920</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>9</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>61</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-09-17T00:00:00Z</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/1472-6920/9/60">
        <title>A comparison of course-related stressors in undergraduate problem-based learning (PBL) versus non-PBL medical programmes</title>
        <description>Background:
Medical students report high levels of stress related to their medical training as well as to other personal and financial factors. The aim of this study is to investigate whether there are differences in course-related stressors reported by medical students on undergraduate problem-based learning (PBL) and non-PBL programmes in the UK.MethodA cross-sectional study of second-year medical students in two UK medical schools (one PBL and one non-PBL programme) was conducted. A 16-question self-report questionnaire, derived from the Perceived Medical Student Stress Scale and the Higher Education Stress Inventory, was used to measure course-related stressors. Following univariate analysis of each stressor between groups, multivariate logistic regression was used to determine which stressors were the best predictors of each course type, while controlling for socio-demographic differences between the groups.
Results:
A total of 280 students responded. Compared to the non-PBL students (N = 197), the PBL students (N = 83) were significantly more likely to agree that: they did not know what the faculty expected of them (Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.38, p = 0.03); there were too many small group sessions facilitated only by students resulting in an unclear curriculum (OR = 0.04, p &lt; 0.0001); and that there was a lack of opportunity to explore academic subjects of interest (OR = 0.40, p = 0.02). They were significantly more likely to disagree that: there was a lack of encouragement from teachers (OR = 3.11, p = 0.02); and that the medical course fostered a sense of anonymity and feelings of isolation amongst students (OR = 3.42, p = 0.008).
Conclusion:
There are significant differences in the perceived course-related stressors affecting medical students on PBL and non-PBL programmes. Course designers and student support services should therefore tailor their work to minimise, or help students cope with, the specific stressors on each course type to ensure optimum learning and wellbeing among our future doctors.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/9/60</link>
                <dc:creator>Alexander Lewis</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Darryl Braganza Menezes</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Helen McDermott</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Louise Hibbert</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Sarah-Louise Brennan</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Elizabeth Ross</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Lisa Jones</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medical Education 2009, 9:60</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-09-13T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1472-6920-9-60</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Medical Education</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1472-6920</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>9</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>60</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-09-13T00:00:00Z</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/1472-6920/9/59">
        <title>Teaching trainers to incorporate evidence-based medicine (EBM) teaching in clinical practice: the EU-EBM project.</title>
        <description>Background:
Evidence based medicine (EBM) is considered an integral part of medical training, but integration of teaching various EBM steps in everyday clinical practice is uncommon. Currently EBM is predominantly taught through theoretical courses, workshops and e-learning. However, clinical teachers lack confidence in teaching EBM in workplace and are often unsure of the existing opportunities for teaching EBM in the clinical setting. There is a need for continuing professional development (CPD) courses that train clinical trainers to teach EBM through on-the-job training by demonstration of applied EBM real time in clinical practice. We developed such a course to encourage clinically relevant teaching of EBM in post-graduate education in various clinical environments.
Methods:
We devised an e-learning course targeting trainers with EBM knowledge to impart educational methods needed to teach application of EBM teaching in commonly used clinical settings. The curriculum development group comprised experienced EBM teachers, clinical epidemiologists, clinicians and educationalists from institutions in seven European countries. The e-learning sessions were designed to allow participants (teachers) to undertake the course in the workplace during short breaks within clinical activities. An independent European steering committee provided input into the process.
Results:
The curriculum defined specific learning objectives for teaching EBM by exploiting educational opportunities in six different clinical settings. The e-modules incorporated video clips that demonstrate practical and effective methods of EBM teaching in everyday clinical practice. The course encouraged focussed teaching activities embedded within a trainer&apos;s personal learning plan and documentation in a CPD portfolio for reflection.
Conclusion:
This curriculum will help senior clinicians to identify and make the best use of available opportunities in everyday practice in clinical situations to teach various steps of EBM and demonstrate their applicability to clinical practice. Once fully implemented, the ultimate outcome of this pilot project will be a European qualification in teaching EBM, which will be used by doctors, hospitals, professional bodies responsible for postgraduate qualifications and continuing medical education.</description>
        <link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/9/59</link>
                <dc:creator>Shakila Thangaratinam</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Gemma Barnfield</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Susanne Weinbrenner</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Berit Meyerrose</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Theodoros Arvanitis</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Andrea Horvath</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Gianni Zanrei</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Regina Kunz</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Katja Suter</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jacek Walczak</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Anna Kaleta</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Katrien Oude Rengerink</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Harry Gee</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Ben Mol</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Khalid Khan</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>BMC Medical Education 2009, 9:59</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-09-10T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1472-6920-9-59</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>BMC Medical Education</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1472-6920</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>9</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>59</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-09-10T00:00:00Z</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>
