The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluating an evidence-based curriculum in undergraduate palliative care education: piloting a phase II exploratory trial for a complex intervention
Open accessAbstract
Background: By 2013 Palliative Care will become a mandatory examination subject in the medical curriculum in Germany. There is a pressing need for effective and well-designed curricula and assessment methods. Debates are on going as how Undergraduate Palliative Care Education (UPCE) should be taught and how knowledge and skills should be assessed. It is evident by this time that the development process of early curricula in the US and UK has led to a plethora of diverse curricula which seem to be partly ineffective in improving the care for the seriously ill and dying offered by newly qualified doctors, as is demonstrated in controlled evaluations. The goals of this study were to demonstrate an evidence-based approach towards developing UPCE curricula and investigate the change in medical students’ self-perceived readiness to deal with palliative care patients and their families. Methods: To evaluate the effects of the UPCE curriculum we chose a prospective, controlled, quasi-experimental, pre, retrospective-pre, post study design. A total of n = 37 3 rd and 4 th–year medical students were assigned to the intervention group (n = 15; 4 th-year) and to the control group (n = 22; 3 rd-year). Resting on the self-efficacy concept of Bandura the measurement was conducted by a refined test-battery based on two independent measurements (the revised Collet-Lester-Fear-of-Death-Scale and the instrument of the “Program in Palliative Care Education and Practice” at Harvard Medical School) including 68 items altogether in a five-point Likert-scale. These items were designed to test elementary skills in caring for the dying and their relatives as perceived by medical undergraduates. Datasets from both groups were analysed by paired and independent two-sample t-test. The TREND statement for reporting non-randomized evaluations was applied for reporting on this quasi-experimental study. Results: Three constructs showed statistically significant differences comparing the intervention group before and after. Willingness to accompany a dying patient increased from 21.40 to 37.30 (p < .001). Self-estimation of competence in communication with dying patients and their relatives increased from 12.00 to 23.60 (p = .001). Finally, self-estimation of knowledge and skills in Palliative Care increased from 8.30 to 13.20 (p = .001). Conclusions: This study is a small but systematic step towards rigorous curricular development in palliative care. Our manualised curriculum is available for scrutiny and scientific feedback to support an open and constructive process of best-practice comparison in palliative care.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health
Campbell, M. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7262.694 · Cited by 3,474 · cited 2×
“According to the Medical Research Council framework for complex interventions, research at a high level of complexity should follow a step-wise approach [37].”
BackgroundMethodDes Jarlais, D. C., Lyles, C., Crepaz, N., & the TREND Group (2004) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.94.3.361 · Cited by 2,817
Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care
Black, N. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7040.1215 · Cited by 1,598
Measuring Program Outcomes: Using Retrospective Pretest Methodology
Pratt, C. C., McGuigan, W. M., & Katzev, A. R. (2000) · American Journal of Evaluation · doi:10.1177/109821400002100305 · Cited by 611
Cited by
McLean, S. F. (2016) · Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development · doi:10.4137/jmecd.s20377 · Cited by 759
Resilience in the Workplace: A Multilevel Review and Synthesis
Hartmann, S., Weiss, M., Newman, A., & Hoegl, M. (2020) · Applied Psychology · doi:10.1111/apps.12191 · Cited by 521
Implementation of competency‐based medical education: are we addressing the concerns and challenges?
Hawkins, R. E., Welcher, C. M., Holmboe, E. S., Kirk, L. M., Norcini, J. J., Simons, K. B., & Skochelak, S. E. (2015) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.12831 · Cited by 409
Gorbanev, I., Agudelo-Londoño, S., González, R. A., Cortes, A., Pomares, A., Delgadillo, V., Yepes, F. J., & Muñoz, Ó. (2018) · Medical Education Online · doi:10.1080/10872981.2018.1438718 · Cited by 406
Aherne, D., Farrant, K., Hickey, L., Hickey, E., McGrath, L., & McGrath, D. (2016) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-016-0728-8 · Cited by 158
Metadata
- Authors
- Schulz, C., Möller, M. F., Seidler, D., & Schnell, M. W.
- Venue
- BMC Medical Education
- Published
- 2013-01-04
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-1
- ISSN
- 1472-6920 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1993250413
- Cited by
- 240
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 23.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluating an evidence-based curriculum in undergraduate palliative care education: piloting a phase II exploratory trial for a complex intervention. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1472-6920-13-1
- The paper
- Schulz, C., Möller, M. F., Seidler, D., & Schnell, M. W. (2013). Evaluating an evidence-based curriculum in undergraduate palliative care education: piloting a phase II exploratory trial for a complex intervention. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-13-1
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.