Cited by 24Innovations in Medical EducationRadiology practices and educationProblem and Project Based Learning

Radiologists as Clinical Tutors in a Problem-Based Medical School Curriculum

Bui-Mansfield, Liem T., Chew, Felix S.·2001·Academic Radiology

Abstract

Rationale and objectives The authors sought to evaluate the experience of radiologists teaching in a problem-based pre-clinical medical school curriculum.Materials and methods The undergraduate medical school curriculum at Wake Forest University includes 2 problem-based preclinical years that integrate basic and clinical sciences. Sixteen radiology fellows served as general clinical tutors for 5-9 weeks, each guiding the work of six 2nd-year students, often in tandem with a basic science tutor. On completion of the tutoring. the radiologists and the students were surveyed by means of a questionnaire. A follow-up group interview was conducted with the radiologists.Results The response rate to the questionnaire was 81% for the radiologists and 47% for the students. On average, radiologists spent 6.1 hours weekly on preparation and tutoring and 3.5 hours in total on administration and grading. All radiologists thought tutoring was rewarding, but seven of the 13 respondents (54%) disliked assigning grades. Radiologists spent less time teaching radiology residents and performing research, but few thought their clinical work was adversely affected. Nearly half of the radiologist-tutors thought that the preliminary orientation and training provided to them by the medical school was not adequate, and nearly all of them thought that they could have been better prepared. All of the medical students improved their perceptions of radiologists after having had a radiologist as a tutor, and most thought that the radiologist-tutors performed as well as or better than tutors from other disciplines.Conclusion Radiologists can be successful as general tutors in a problem-based medical school curriculum. benefiting both radiologists and students. Better orientation and training by the medical school would improve the program.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1076-6332(03)80693-1

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bui-Mansfield, L. T., & Chew, F. S.
Affiliations
  • Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (US)
  • Wake Forest University Health Sciences (US)
Corresponding author
Chew, Felix S.
Venue
Academic Radiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2001-07
Volume
8
Issue
7
Pages
657-663
ISSN
1076-6332 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1980766578
Cited by
24
References
22
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Academic Radiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiology practices and education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Problem and Project Based Learning
Keywords
problem-based learning, preclinical education, radiology education, grading, medical students' perceptions, curriculum integration
MeSH terms
Curriculum, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Humans, Radiology, United States, Problem-Based Learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review