Does the Pathology Education Received in the Undergraduate Preclinical Years Provide Benefits in the Clinical Education Period? A Survey on 5^th Grade Medical Students

Abstract

Aim:We aimed to evaluate the perceptions of 5 th grade medical faculty students regarding the adequacy of the pathology education they received in the preclinical period and the benefit of it in clinical clerkship training, Materials and Methods: A 14-question digital questionnaire consisting of open-ended and multiple choice questions was created and sent via e-mail and whatsapp to the students who were in the 3 rd grade at our faculty of medicine in the 2018-2019 academic year and were in the 5 th grade in the 2020-2021 academic year. The results were analyzed and statistically evaluated.Results: 56% of the students found the pathology education they received sufficient. Microscopy and macroscopy training, visiting the pathology laboratory, case-based discussion and self-study of the resources suggested by the instructors had a significant contribution to students' learning (p<0.05). The medical education received in the 3 rd grade offered a significant benefit during the clinical clerkship period (p=0.02). The greatest benefit was obtained from macroscopy education and the students strongly recommended macroscopy and case based learning. According to 75% of the students, the education they received helped to understand the disease mechanism. Conclusion:The medical pathology education formed the basis of the clinical clerkship period and case-based learning and macroscopy training were the most effective methods. To be more useful, didactic lessons should be combined with different and up-to-date learning methods and the curriculum should be updated. Standardization of pathology education in medical faculties is also an issue that needs to be addressed.

Are we where we want to be in undergraduate pathology education?

“…Students considered case-based learning and macroscopy training as the most effective methods and suggested that they should be emphasized. It was reported that didactic lessons were more useful when combined with different methods such as case-based learning, assignments/projects, presentation, and microscopy studies ( 51 ). In the second study, a survey was conducted in a heterogeneous group of doctors from different specialties or general practitioners who graduated after 2000, with an objective to explore which method of undergraduate pathology education was most beneficial for their active professional lives.…”

“…The physicians considered the utility of the information (n=89, 83.2%), teaching methods (n=78, 72.9%), and the characteristics of the educator (n=75, 70.1%) to be important. They recommended case discussions (n=79, 72.9%), macroscopy (n=65, 60.7%), microscopy studies (n=62, 57.9%), problem-based learning (PBL) (n=61, 57.0%), and observation in the hospital laboratory (n=51, 47.6%) as major components of pathology education ( 51 ).…”

“…The authors reported that both students and educators were satisfied with the application ( 6 ). During the COVID-19 pandemic, telepathology began to be used in education in Turkey, as in the rest of the world, and it was applied by integrating it with case-based and team-based education ( 38 , 67 ) ( Table 3 ).…”