Document Type : Original Article
Authors
- . Mourouguessine Vimal
- . Amol Rambhau Dongre 1
- . Anandabaskar Nishanthi 2
- . Rajendrakumar Nivaratirao Kagne. 3
1 Departments of Pathology, Community Medicine,
2 Departments of Pathology, Pharmacology
3 Forensic Medicine, Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital, Puducherry, India
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The demands and learning challenges in medical schools are not efficiently
overcome by all learners. Despite the gravity of the problem, there is a dearth of studies to identify,
define, and address the needs of learners. Thus, the present study was designed to do a situational
analysis to identify and define the problems of learners and to develop a model for student support
system in our institution.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A phenomenological type of qualitative research was undertaken.
One‑to‑one in‑depth interviews (IDIs) were conducted, 10 each among undergraduate medical
students, faculties and parents (n = 30) to understand the problems of students and their suggested
solutions from each one’s perspective. The interviews were audio‑recorded, transcribed verbatim,
and manual thematic analyses were performed.
RESULTS: Manual thematic analysis of the transcripts yielded 16 subcategories and 7 categories.
The various categories that emerged are (1) curriculum related; (2) interpersonal adjustment
problems; (3) personal issues and family problems; (4) cognitive learning disabilities; (5) poor
organizational skills; (6) students’ lack of motivation; and (7) miscellaneous. Based on the problems
and their suggested solutions, a model for the essential components of a student support system for
our college was developed. It outlines the principal roles of four key stakeholders, namely students,
faculties, parents, and college administration.
CONCLUSION: It has been found that students face various academic problems, personal,
interpersonal and family level issues. We developed the support system model suitable for our
context. In future, it may be implemented and evaluated to check if it achieves the desired purpose.
Keywords
- Anuradha R, Dutta R, Raja JD, Sivaprakasam P, Patil AB.
Stress and stressors among medical undergraduate students:
A cross‑sectional study in a private medical college in Tamil
Nadu. Indian J Community Med 2017;42:222‑5.
2. Garg K, Agarwal M, Dalal PK. Stress among medical students:
A cross‑sectional study from a North Indian Medical University.
Indian J Psychiatry 2017;59:502‑4.
3. Ahmed M, Prashantha B. Perceived stress and source of stress
among undergraduate medical students of Government Medical
College, Mysore. Int J Community Med Public Health 2018;5:3513‑8.
4. Maher BM, Hynes H, Sweeney C, Khashan AS, O’Rourke M,
Doran K, et al. Medical school attrition‑beyond the statistics a ten
year retrospective study. BMC Med Educ 2013;13:13.
5. Lester S. An Introduction to Phenomenological Research; 1999.
Available from: https://www.rgs.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx
?nodeguid=7ad9b8d4‑6a93‑4269‑94d2‑585983364b51&lang=en‑
GB. [Last accessed on 2019 Aug 05].
6. Patton MQ. Purposeful sampling. In: Qualitative Evaluation and
Research Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1990. p.169‑86. Available
from: https://legacy.oise.utoronto.ca/research/field‑centres/ross/
ctl1014/Patton1990.pdf. [Last accessed on 2019 Aug 05].
7. Vasileiou K, Barnett J, Thorpe S, Young T. Characterising and
justifying sample size sufficiency in interview‑based studies:
Systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15‑year
period. BMC Med Res Methodol 2018;18:148. - 8. Van Rijnsoever FJ. (I Can’t Get No) Saturation: A simulation and
guidelines for sample sizes in qualitative research. PLoS One
2017;12:e0181689.
9. Boyce C, Neale P. Conducting in‑Depth Interviews: A Guide for
Designing and Conducting in‑Depth Interviews for Evaluation
Input; 2006. Available from: http://www2.pathfinder.org/
site/DocServer/m_e_tool_series_indepth_interviews.pdf. [Last
accessed on 2019 Aug 05].
10. UCLA Center for Health Policy Research: Section 4: Key
Informant Interviews. Available from: http://healthpolicy.ucla.
edu/programs/healthdata/trainings/Documents/tw_cba23.
pdf. [Last accessed on 2019 Aug 07].
11. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting
qualitative research (COREQ): A 32‑item checklist for interviews
and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007;19:349‑57.
12. Irene K, Albine M. Series: Practical guidance to qualitative
research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing. Europ J Gen
Pract 2018;24:120‑4.
13. Noble H, Smith J. Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative
research. Evid Based Nurs 2015;18:34‑5.
14. Sandars J, Patel R, Steele H, McAreavey M, Association for
Medical Education Europe. Developmental student support in
undergraduate medical education: AMEE Guide No. 92. Med
Teach 2014;36:1015‑26.
15. Hays RB, Lawson M, Gray C. Problems presented by medical
students seeking support: A possible intervention framework.
Med Teach 2011;33:161‑4.
16. Almoallim H, Aldahlawi S, Alqahtani E, Alqurashi S, Munshi A.
Difficulties facing first‑year medical students at Umm Alqura
University in Saudi Arabia. East Mediterr Health J 2012;16:1272‑7.
17. Vaughn LM, Baker RC, DeWitt TG. ‘The Problem Learner’. Teach
Learn Med 1998;10:217‑22.
18. Steinert Y. The “problem” learner: Whose problem is it? AMEE
Guide No. 76. Med Teach 2013;35:e1035‑45.
19. Institutional Accreditation Manual for Self‑study Report
Affiliated/Constituent Colleges. National Assessment and
Accreditation Council(NAAC); June 2013. Available from: http://
dcedu.in/wp‑content/uploads/2017/08/ssr_naac.pdf. [Last
accessed on 2019 Aug 05].
20. Dhillon J, McGowan M, Wang H. What do We Mean
by Student Support? Staff and Students’ Perspectives of
the Provision and Effectiveness of Support for Students.
University of Wolverhampton. Learning and Teaching Projects
2005/06. Available from: http://wlv.openrepository.com/wlv/
handle/2436/7596. [Last accessed on 2019 Aug 05].
21. Robertson F, Donaldson C, Jarvis R, Jeffrey D. How can an
academic mentor improve support of tomorrows’ doctors? Scott
Univ Med J 2013;2:28‑38.
22. World Federation for Medical Education (WFME). Basic Medical
Education. WFME Global Standards for Quality Improvement.
The 2015 Revision. Available from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.
org/07e2/de45f2fbea7e001e8f37f3d82dc85c864d13.pdf. [Last
accessed on 2019 Aug 05].
)