METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional study design was used. Two different scales were used to measure the readiness for and perception of interprofessional learning; these were the 'Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale' and the 'Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale'. A convenience sampling method was employed. The sample was drawn from undergraduate students enrolled in years 1 to 5 of medical, dental, pharmacy and health sciences programme. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyse the data.
RESULTS: The overall response rate was 83%. The students mentioned that shared learning with other healthcare professional students will increase their ability to understand clinical problems. The students also mentioned that such shared learning will help them to communicate better with patients and other professionals. The students preferred to work with individuals from their own profession. Participants from medical, dental, pharmacy, and health sciences had a difference in opinion about 'negative professional identity', a domain of the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale. Based on the different year of study of the students, 'team work and collaboration', 'negative professional identity' and 'roles and responsibility' were the Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale domains where students had a difference in opinion.
CONCLUSIONS: Attitudes and readiness towards interprofessional learning showed significant differences among students of various healthcare professions; these differences also depended on the students' year of study. Interprofessional learning should be incorporated in the curriculum of all healthcare professional programs, which may foster students to become competent healthcare providers and understand each profession's role.
METHODS: Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted among medical, dentistry, and pharmacy students in a Malaysian University. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analyzed to understand the students' perspectives of QA in education.
RESULTS: The participants recognized the importance of QA towards ensuring the quality of their training, which will consequently impact their work readiness, employability, and quality of healthcare services. Academic governance, curriculum structure, content and delivery, faculty and student quality, teaching facilities, and learning resources were indicated as the QA areas. The challenges for students' involvement included students' attitude, maturity, and cultural barrier. To enhance their buy-in, clear objectives and impact, efficient QA mechanism, and recognition of students' contribution had been suggested.
CONCLUSION: The findings of this study support student-faculty partnership in QA processes and decision making.
Material and methods: Module tests (discipline-based assessments) comprising of discipline specific questions are conducted at the end of every term, mimicking the traditional discipline-specific assessment. Questions in the module tests are intended to assess the depth of knowledge of students. Mid semester examinations are conducted at the end of the semester, mimicking the integrated assessment. Integrated questions are intended to test the breadth of knowledge of students.
Results: Lecturers and students felt introduction of module tests, helped them to prepare for topics in a phased manner and better answer questions posed by lecturers during case discussions and clinical presentations. The 'borderline distinction' students felt that studying for module tests provided them with the depth of knowledge essential to answer questions during viva voce.
Discussion: Including both the traditional and integrated methods of assessments would engage students in a learning experience developing their breadth and depth of knowledge. Further prospective research is essential to assess the impact of this assessment strategy.
METHOD: A quantitative cross-sectional study design was adopted. Honey and Mumford's Learning Style Questionnaire was used to explore the learning styles.
RESULTS: The reflector learning style was most preferred by the Malaysian healthcare undergraduates, and no significant difference was found between the learning styles of the clinical group and the semi-clinical group.
CONCLUSIONS: Educators should engage Malaysian healthcare undergraduates in a non-threatening environment - Association between learning style and sociodemographic warrants further investigation.
METHODS: Twenty-five final year physiotherapy students were asked to view and interpret the findings of six CXRs, together with a brief vignette, typical of a single commonly encountered diagnosis. Students were also asked if they had received additional CXR training on placement or had a desire to specialize in respiratory care.
RESULTS: The CXR interpretations were scored as incorrect 0, partially correct 1 (abnormality detected but not able to diagnose or missed some detail) and 2 correct. Scores for each of the six CXRs were added to give a total score (out of 12). The median score was 3 out of 12, (range 0-9). Median scores were slightly higher at 4 out of 12 in those students with additional training or a desire to specialize (range 1-7), but this was not statistically significant (p = 0.43).
CONCLUSIONS: Final year physiotherapy students were not able to reliably interpret CXRs. These findings were consistent with previous published research involving medical students. Therefore on graduation before starting "on call" duties it is recommended newly qualified physiotherapists receive additional training in CXR interpretation.
Methods: A literature search was carried out through Scopus, Science Direct, Google Scholar, PubMed, and EBSCOhost databases based on specific search terms. Each article was appraised based on title, abstract, and full text. The selected articles were critically appraised, and relevant information to support the validity of MMI in various educational settings was synthesized. This paper followed the PRISMA guideline to ensure consistency in reporting systematic review results.
Results: A majority of the studies were from Canada, with 41.54%, followed by the United Kingdom (25.39%), the United States (13.85%), and Australia (9.23%). The rest (9.24%) were from Germany, Ireland, the United Arab Emirates, Japan, Pakistan, Taiwan, and Malaysia. Moreover, most MMI stations ranged from seven to 12 with a duration of 10 min per station (including a 2-min gap between stations).
Conclusion: The results suggest that the content, response process, and internal structure of MMI were well supported by evidence; however, the relation and consequences of MMI to important outcome variables were inconsistently supported. The evidence shows that MMI is a non-biased, practical, feasible, reliable, and content-valid admission tool. However, further research on its impact on non-cognitive outcomes is required.
METHOD: This cross-sectional study was conducted on a sample of 256 conveniently selected elderly Malaysians who were residing in the states of Selangor and Kuala Lumpur. A pre-validated interview-administered questionnaire was used to gather information. Data was entered into PASW version 18 and analyzed.
RESULTS: A total of 256 questionnaires were included in the study. A response rate of 64% was achieved. Out of 256 respondents, 92 (35.9%) were male while 164 (64.1%) were female. More than half of the respondents (n = 141; 55.1%) agreed that CAM is more effective than allopathic medicine. Chinese respondents showed strong belief in the effectiveness of CAM. In terms of safety of CAM, close to three quarters of respondents (n = 178; 69.5%) believed that CAM is safer than allopathic medicine. A large majority of respondents agreed that CAM has less side effects compared to allopathic medicine (n = 201; 78.5%) and also agreed that CAM is good to maintain overall health and wellbeing (n = 212; 82.8%). A majority of the respondents expressed that they use CAM because allopathic medicine is less effective (n = 113; 44.1%).
CONCLUSION: The current study reflects the reasons of using CAM among lay public from different ethnicities. There are no reports of adverse effects related to CAM use. Future approaches should be intended for awareness campaigns for consumers, highlighting safety profile of CAM and as well as forbidding their use without the consultation of healthcare professional.