Cited by 81Innovations in Medical EducationProblem and Project Based LearningHealth and Medical Education

Attitudes among students and teachers on vertical integration between clinical medicine and basic science within a problem-based undergraduate medical curriculum

Brynhildsen, J., Dahle, L.O., Fallsberg, M. Behrbohm, Rundquist, I., Hammar, M.·2002·Medical Teacher

Abstract

Important elements in the curriculum at the Faculty of Health Sciences in Linköping are vertical integration, i.e. integration between the clinical and basic science sections of the curriculum, and horizontal integration between different subject areas. Integration throughout the whole curriculum is time-consuming for both teachers and students and hard work is required for planning, organization and execution. The aim was to assess the importance of vertical and horizontal integration in an undergraduate medical curriculum, according to opinions among students and teachers. In a questionnaire 102 faculty teachers and 106 students were asked about the importance of 14 different components of the undergraduate medical curriculum including vertical and horizontal integration. They were asked to assign between one and six points to each component (6 points = extremely important for the quality of the curriculum; 1 point = unimportant). Students as well as teachers appreciated highly both forms of integration. Students scored horizontal integration slightly but significantly higher than the teachers (median 6 vs 5 points; p=0.009, Mann-Whitney U-test), whereas teachers scored vertical integration higher than students (6 vs 5; p=0.019, Mann-Whitney U-test). Both students and teachers considered horizontal and vertical integration to be highly important components of the undergraduate medical programme. We believe both kinds of integration support problem-based learning and stimulate deep and lifelong learning and suggest that integration should always be considered deeply when a new curriculum is planned for undergraduate medical education.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01421590220134105

Cites

8 of 8 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
Brynhildsen, J., Dahle, L. O., Fallsberg, M. B., Rundquist, I., & Hammar, M.
Affiliations
Linköping University Hospital (SE)
Venue
Medical Teacher
Published
2002-01
Volume
24
Issue
3
Pages
286-288
ISSN
  • 0142-159X (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-187X
OpenAlex
W2134330829
Cited by
81
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 7
FWCI
1.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Teacher (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Problem and Project Based Learning
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health and Medical Education
Keywords
vertical integration, horizontal integration, undergraduate medical curriculum, problem-based learning, student attitudes, teacher attitudes, curriculum development, lifelong learning, deep learning
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Biological Science Disciplines, Curriculum, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Faculty, Medical, Humans, Students, Medical, Sweden, Clinical Medicine, Models, Educational, 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