Student characteristics short communications

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
Student characteristics short communications by Mind Map: Student characteristics short communications

1. Presentation 1

1.1. Development of MED NORD - A tool for measuring medical students'well-being and study orientations

1.1.1. Dysfunctional approach

1.1.1.1. Exhaustion

1.1.1.2. Lack of regulation

1.1.1.3. anxiety

1.1.2. Collaborative knowledge building

1.1.3. Cookbook approach

1.1.4. Social orientation

1.1.5. Individual abilities approach

1.1.6. Picture

1.2. Participants and data collection

1.2.1. missed slide

1.2.2. PBL vs non-PBL

1.2.2.1. picture

1.2.2.1.1. Indicators of Well-being

1.2.2.2. stress level 3 out of 5 may be optimal: indicating engagement

1.2.3. What variables predict student satisfaction?

1.2.3.1. Lack of interest

1.2.3.1.1. -0,29

1.2.3.1.2. Component of burn out

1.2.3.2. Optimism

1.2.3.2.1. 0,21

1.2.3.3. Feedback

1.2.3.3.1. 0,17

1.2.3.4. Picture

1.2.3.5. Model explained 19% of variance

1.3. What do we NOT know yet

1.3.1. How are PBL students different when it comes to components of dysfunctional orientation

1.3.2. Are some components more harmful than others?

1.4. Contact detail

1.4.1. Picture

1.4.2. Survey is very diagnostic, willing to send info

1.5. Discussion

1.5.1. picture

1.6. Questions

1.6.1. Outcomes used for

1.6.1.1. New profession developed

1.6.1.1.1. Study councellor, using this data

1.6.1.1.2. quite often: 4 years of study people come doubting commitment

1.6.1.1.3. Is service trusted?

1.6.2. Exhaustionis quite high in whole group

1.6.2.1. Medical students may be used to higher stress levels

1.6.2.2. 1st and 4th yeras students

1.6.2.3. In beginning more exhausted

2. Presentation 2

2.1. Emotional intelligence and academic performance

2.1.1. by James Heron and Phillip Evans, Glasgow

2.1.2. Elizabeth Austin

2.1.3. Carried out in 2009

2.2. Objectives

2.2.1. pictures

2.3. What did we measure

2.3.1. Emotional intelligence:

2.3.1.1. The ability to perceive, understand, use and mange emotions

2.3.1.2. Ability to recognise and respond to the emotional needs of patients

2.3.1.3. High physician EI positively correlated with patient satisfaction

2.3.1.4. In medical students evidence that high ei is correlated with good performance in communication skills task

2.3.2. Empathy

2.3.2.1. related to EI

2.3.2.2. Evidence of greater patient compliance when high physician empathy score

2.3.2.3. Review found that clinical empathy was key to high quality care

2.3.3. The Big-5 personality traits:

2.3.3.1. Openness

2.3.3.2. Conscientiousness

2.3.3.3. Extraversion

2.3.3.4. Agreeableness

2.3.3.5. Neuroticism

2.3.4. The BIG 5 in medicine

2.3.4.1. Literature review

2.3.4.1.1. picture

2.3.5. picture

2.4. Methods

2.4.1. ethical approval

2.4.2. Modified validated 41-item questionnaire measuring undergraduates

2.4.3. Completed questionnaires anonymed

2.4.4. EI, empathy and personality traits analysed in respect to performance in written examinations coursework and MILE (medical independent learning exercises)

2.4.5. picture

2.4.6. picture

2.5. Results

2.5.1. missed first slide

2.5.2. No other statistical correlation between EI and academic performance

2.6. Conclusions

2.6.1. limitations:

2.6.1.1. less than 10% response rate

2.6.2. Strengths

2.6.2.1. high internal reliabilities of questionnaire measures

2.6.2.2. rigorous statistical analysis of results

2.6.3. Conscientiousness is a significant predictor of academic success. This is in accordance with previous research

2.6.4. There is no relationship between EI, empathy, other traits and success in written axams and coursework.

2.6.5. Perhaps examinations therefore reward conscientiousness and neglect other possibly desirable traits such as openness and agreeableness

2.6.6. more research is needed to establish the correlation between EI, empathy and traits and OSCE's and clinical examinations

3. Presentation 3

3.1. Measures of creativity and response pattern to adversity

3.2. Not much written on it

3.3. Conceptual framework

3.3.1. Guidford 1950 & Torrance 1962

3.3.1.1. creativity

3.3.2. Stolz 2000

3.3.2.1. Adversity quotient

3.3.3. picture

3.4. Exploratory phase

3.4.1. Review concepts and existing measures

3.4.2. Pool and modify items

3.4.3. content validation by experts

3.4.4. Questionnaire

3.4.4.1. creativity

3.4.4.1.1. no items each field

3.4.4.2. response terms to adversity

3.4.4.2.1. no items each field

3.5. Survey

3.5.1. 1204 population

3.5.2. returned 56%

3.5.3. 54% had <19 units missing

3.6. Validation

3.6.1. Construct

3.6.1.1. factor analysis

3.6.1.1.1. excluse as many items as possible

3.6.2. content

3.6.2.1. independent experts

3.7. Reliability

3.7.1. Internal consistency

3.7.1.1. Cronbach's alpha

3.7.1.1.1. higher than .7

3.7.1.2. future: test-retest

3.7.1.3. item-total corelation

3.7.1.3.1. higher than 0.3

3.8. Results

3.8.1. Slide photo

3.8.1.1. Factors

3.8.1.1.1. Elaboration

3.8.1.1.2. Fluency

3.8.1.1.3. Innovation

3.8.1.1.4. Control

3.8.1.1.5. Adjustment

3.8.2. Analysis

3.8.2.1. Year

3.8.2.1.1. clinical vs pre-clinical

3.8.2.2. Gender

3.8.2.3. GPAX

3.8.2.3.1. When students get better at tests, innovation decreases

3.9. Conclusion

3.9.1. Interesting to look at

3.9.2. Medical education may affect creativity

3.9.3. Med Ed may affect RPA

3.9.4. further validation is required to increase the validity of the measure.

3.9.5. Other attributes should be included and relationships should be explored such as creativity and drive to achievement, academic misconduct

3.10. Questions

3.10.1. Example items (items in thai)

3.11. Comment

3.11.1. Can we add students active in association yes/no

3.11.2. New node

3.12. Contact

3.12.1. [email protected]

3.12.1.1. To do: contact

4. Presentation 4

4.1. Background

4.1.1. Feminisation of profession

4.1.2. desire

4.1.3. workload

4.1.4. generation?

4.1.5. gender?

4.2. Aim

4.2.1. explore future life expectations of women and men at begin and end of education

4.3. Open question

4.3.1. My life will look like this in 10-15 years

4.4. Man/woman

4.4.1. can you distinguish answers

4.4.2. Sample - Slide

4.5. Summary of work

4.5.1. Data 507 first- and last term students

4.5.2. contetn analysis

4.5.3. encoding

4.5.4. quantitative analysis

4.6. findings

4.6.1. Picture - themes

4.6.2. Work

4.6.2.1. I Like my job

4.6.2.2. I know what I want to be

4.6.2.3. Full-time

4.6.2.4. Part-time

4.6.3. Family

4.6.3.1. partner

4.6.3.2. Children

4.6.4. Leisure

4.6.4.1. Travel and hobbies

4.6.4.2. Friends and relatives

4.6.4.3. physical activity

4.6.5. Quality of personal life

4.6.5.1. etc.

4.7. Summary of results

4.7.1. We found no general pattern of home-centered women and work-centered men

4.7.2. see picture etc

4.8. Conclusions

4.8.1. picture

4.9. Questions

4.9.1. Do you follow up on this?

4.9.2. Will dreams change?

4.9.3. Follow up study on same cohort?

4.10. To do

4.10.1. Mail to PWG - Bernardo

5. Presentation 5

5.1. The WHO Quality of Life questionnaire: usefulness for medical education

5.1.1. WHOQOL-BREF

5.1.1.1. abbreviated Australian version

5.2. rationale

5.2.1. 1. to optimise training

5.2.2. 2. to monitor QOL of med students

5.2.3. 3. implications for future competence as clinicians

5.3. Is the instrument any good for medical students?

5.4. Participants

5.4.1. 1273 med students

5.4.2. year 4,5

5.4.3. response rate 80%

5.4.4. Ethnicity

5.4.4.1. A:E:M:PI:O --- 97:99:14:14:47

5.4.5. Gender

5.4.5.1. M:F -> 122:150

5.4.6. Age

5.4.6.1. 23 years

5.5. Procedure

5.5.1. missed by me

5.6. Results

5.6.1. Picture

5.7. Conclusions

5.7.1. picture

5.8. Questions

5.8.1. other students

5.8.1.1. No difference between medical students and other students --> unlike expected (different study)

6. Presentation 6

6.1. Raising a family while earning a medical degree?

6.1.1. A study on supporting factors

6.2. Background

6.2.1. Childlessness in female university graduates

6.2.2. Some involuntarily

6.2.3. Very few female professors

6.3. Purpose

6.3.1. Identify which factors enable or hinder a successful medical education for students deciding to rais a family

6.4. Method

6.4.1. Examine the living and study experience of students with children

6.4.2. picture

6.5. Study

6.5.1. Participants

6.5.1.1. 5 medical schools in Germany

6.5.2. Response rate

6.5.3. Characteristics

6.5.3.1. 80% female

6.5.3.2. 29-30 years old

6.5.3.3. children plusminus 5 yo

6.5.3.4. most married

6.5.3.5. child planned in 60%

6.5.4. Beneficial because

6.5.4.1. young parenthood has advantage

6.5.4.2. desire is not delayed

6.5.4.3. etc

6.5.5. Family friendliness

6.5.5.1. picture

6.5.5.2. Positively correlates with

6.5.5.2.1. Study organization

6.5.5.2.2. Information

6.5.5.2.3. Attitude

6.5.6. Problems

6.5.6.1. >60% problems

6.5.6.2. Compulsory courses (64%)

6.5.6.3. Courses afternoon

6.5.6.4. Many exams in short periods

6.5.6.5. picture

6.5.7. Information = problem

6.5.7.1. picture

6.5.8. Conclusion

6.5.8.1. picture

7. Presentation 7

7.1. title?

7.2. Background

7.2.1. students don't seek help when in trouble

7.3. interventions

7.3.1. PBL Case

7.3.1.1. presentation of disfunctional students

7.3.1.2. ADHD

7.3.1.3. Case discussion

7.3.1.3.1. How change of behavior could improve performance

7.3.1.4. review of evidence

7.3.1.5. Presentation

7.3.1.6. Reflection

7.3.1.6.1. study habits

7.4. Aim

7.4.1. raise awareness on generic student problem

7.5. behavior change was reported by facilitators

7.6. Survey was sent

7.7. Student views

7.7.1. picture

7.8. Faculty views

7.8.1. picture

7.9. Interpretation

7.9.1. Self-efficacy

7.9.1.1. weakest students are least likely to seek help

7.9.2. Parallel process

7.9.2.1. term from psychotherapy

7.9.2.2. frame: teacher-trainer w students

7.9.2.3. PBL

7.9.2.3.1. Reflection increased self-awareness

7.9.2.3.2. Behavioral change

7.9.2.3.3. Seems

7.10. Discussion

7.10.1. Self-reported change

7.10.1.1. notoriously unreliable

7.10.2. Results encouraging enough to develop new cases

7.11. Conclusions

7.11.1. opportunity

7.11.1.1. see

7.11.1.2. observe

7.11.1.3. discuss

7.11.2. Small wordings in cases produces different results

7.12. Contact info

7.12.1. [email protected]

7.12.2. [email protected]