RESUMO
PURPOSE: To survey graduates in practice from the first four classes of the University of New Mexico School of Medicine's (UNMSOM's) parallel curricular tracks, and compare data about the graduates' practice patterns, learning behaviors, and satisfaction with the profession of medicine. METHOD: Between 1979 and 1993, the UNMSOM had two tracks for the first two years of medical school: a conventional track and the Primary Care Curriculum (PCC), a community-oriented, problem-based track. In 1990, a survey was conducted of the 140 graduates from the first four classes (1983-1986) who had completed their postgraduate training: 40 from the PCC and 100 from the conventional track. Statistical methods included two-way analyses of variance, logistic regression, and chi-square, adjusted by Bonferroni methods. Comparisons between tracks are reported after adjustments were made for specialty effects. RESULTS: Thirty-three graduates (83%) from the PCC and 87 (87%) from the conventional tracks responded. The PCC graduates were much more likely to work in medically underserved areas, practice in publicly funded health care settings, and care for non-paying patients. The PCC graduates more often identified patient problems and curiosity as providing motivation for their learning. They more frequently studied clinical medicine and community health topics and spent time in community activities. The PCC graduates felt better prepared for practice by their undergraduate medical education. There was no difference between the graduates of the two tracks in the sizes of the populations in which they practiced, in the criteria they used for deciding on referrals to other physicians, in the ranges of community resource utilization, or in the degrees of satisfaction within their chosen professions. Large percentages of graduates from both tracks (67% conventional and 79% PCC) considered themselves to be practicing either primary care or a combination of primary care and non-primary care. In addition, 38% of all the graduates practiced in the state of New Mexico. More PCC graduates chose careers in family practice; however, no significant difference was found in a comparison between the proportions of PCC and conventional-track graduates who chose primary care careers. CONCLUSION: Track differences favorable to the PCC were evident in relation to the two major goals established by the program: to attract graduates to careers in primary care in rural and underserved areas and to provide graduates with self-directed, lifelong learning skills. Some expected track effects were not found.
Assuntos
Currículo , Educação de Graduação em Medicina/métodos , Padrões de Prática Médica/estatística & dados numéricos , Centros Médicos Acadêmicos , Adulto , Atitude do Pessoal de Saúde , Escolha da Profissão , Coleta de Dados , Feminino , Humanos , Satisfação no Emprego , Masculino , New Mexico , Atenção Primária à Saúde , Aprendizagem Baseada em Problemas , Inquéritos e QuestionáriosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Problem-based learning curricula are growing in popularity, and questions have been raised about the appropriateness of standardized examinations, such as the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) Parts I, II, and III examinations, for assessing students in these new curricula. METHOD: Data on students' performances on the NBME I were analyzed for 508 graduates of the conventional track and 167 graduates of the problem-based Primary Care Curriculum (PCC) track at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine from the classes of 1983-1992; on NBME II, for 447 and 144 graduates, respectively (classes of 1983-1991); and on NBME III, for 313 and 100 graduates, respectively (classes of 1983-1989). The analyses also included data on the students' total Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) scores, undergraduate science grade-point averages (SGPAs), and admission subgroups within tracks. The statistical methods included analysis of covariance, Student's t-test, and the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: The students who had requested the PCC track but had been randomized into the conventional track had the highest mean scores on all the study variables (for 34 students, 521 on the NBME I, and for 19 students, 551 on the NMBE III). The high-risk students who had requested but had not been accepted into the PCC track seemed to benefit from the highly structured conventional track with regard to their NMBE I performances (467 for 18 students). The PCC students--both those who had been randomized into the PCC and those who had been selected into the PCC--had significantly lower mean scores on the NBME I (455 for 85 students and 463 for 82 students compared with 505 for the 439 students who chose the conventional track), but significantly higher mean scores on the NBME III (521 for 38 students and 522 for 62 students compared with 483 for the seven high-risk students and 487 for the 276 students who chose the conventional track). For both tracks, strong relationships were found among the scores on the three NBME examinations. For the PCC students, significantly weaker relationships were found between mean SGPAs and mean scores on the NBME I, II, and III. For both tracks, MCAT scores, especially in the lowest and highest ranges, were most predictive of performances on the NBME I and II. CONCLUSION: In the short run, the more teacher-centered and structured conventional curriculum better prepared the students for the NBME I, while in the long run, the more student-centered problem-based curriculum better prepared the students for the NBME III: