liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Attitudes among students and teachers on vertical integration between clinical medicine and basic science within a problem-based undergraduate medical curriculum
Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Obstetrics and gynecology. Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Centre of Surgery and Oncology, Department of Surgery in Östergötland.
Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Obstetrics and gynecology.
Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Biomedicine and Surgery, Cell biology.
Show others and affiliations
2002 (English)In: Medical teacher, ISSN 0142-159X, E-ISSN 1466-187X, Vol. 24, no 3, 286-288 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Important elements in the curriculum at the Faculty of Health Sciences in Link÷ping 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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2002. Vol. 24, no 3, 286-288 p.
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-25337DOI: 10.1080/01421590220134105Local ID: 9779OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-25337DiVA: diva2:245665
Available from: 2009-10-07 Created: 2009-10-07 Last updated: 2017-12-13

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records BETA

Brynhildsen, JanDahle, CharlotteRundquist, IngemarHammar, Mats

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Brynhildsen, JanDahle, CharlotteRundquist, IngemarHammar, Mats
By organisation
Faculty of Health SciencesObstetrics and gynecologyDepartment of Surgery in ÖstergötlandCell biology
In the same journal
Medical teacher
Medical and Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 105 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf