Journal of Education and Health Promotion

The effect of integration of basic and clinical aspects of a specific topic in a parasitology course on medical students learning: A randomized controlled trial

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

. Mitra Amini 1
. Fattaneh Mikaeili 2
. Farhad Handjani 3
. Gholamreza Hatam 2
. Qasem Asgari 2

1 Clinical Education Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

2 Department of Parasitology and Mycology, School of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

3 Molecular Dermatology Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran, Department of Dermatology, School of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Parasitology course is one of the basic science courses in the educational
curriculum for medical students. Since the integration of basic and clinical sciences has helped
students better understand the basic science course content, the aim of the present study was to
determine the effect of integration of basic and clinical aspects of a specific topic in a parasitology
course on medical students learning.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted on 110 undergraduate
fifth‑semester medical students from April to July 2018. The students were randomly divided into two
groups, based on student identification number: Intervention and control groups. The topic selected
for this study from the parasitology course was “cutaneous leishmaniasis.” At the beginning of the
program, a dermatologist presented the clinical aspects of the topic to the intervention group. Then,
a parasitologist delivered a traditional lecture about the basic aspects of the topic to both groups.
The students’ scores on questions related to cutaneous leishmaniasis in the final exam were used
as a measure of learning and teaching outcomes. A questionnaire that consisted of seven items and
three open‑ended questions was used based on the objectives of the randomized controlled trial.
Statistical analysis was performed by SPSS software.
RESULTS: Based on the result of the final examination, there was no significant difference in
the learning rate of students between the intervention and control groups (P ≥ 0.05). According
to students’ comments, the teaching of clinical science alongside basic science increased the
importance of the topic and the students’ interest in basic science. Most students agreed that this
method prepares them for their clinical years.
CONCLUSION: Many medical students believe that the content of many basic science courses are
forgotten in the future. Therefore, basic science education alongside clinical science presentations
are suggested.

Keywords

Curriculum
cutaneous
integration
leishmaniasis
medical
students
1. Harden RM, Dent JA. A Practical Guide for Medical Teachers.
4th ed. London: Elsevier; 2013.
2. Islam MA, Talukder RM, Taheri R, Blanchard N. Integration of
basic and clinical sciences courses in U.S. PharmD programs. Am
J Pharm Educ 2016;80:166.
3. Wilkins KM, Moore D, Rohrbaugh RM, Briscoe GW. Integration
of basic and clinical science in the psychiatry clerkship. Acad
Psychiatry 2017;41:369‑72.
4. Shoemaker BJ. Integrative education: A curriculum for the
twenty‑first century. OSSC Bull 1989;33:1‑46.
5. Spencer AL, Brosenitsch T, Levine AS, Kanter SL. Back to the
basic sciences: An innovative approach to teaching senior medical
students how best to integrate basic science and clinical medicine.
Acad Med 2008;83:662‑9.
6. Dahle LO, Brynhildsen J, Behrbohm Fallsberg M, Rundquist I,
Hammar M. Pros and cons of vertical integration between
clinical medicine and basic science within a problem‑based
undergraduate medical curriculum: Examples and experiences
from Linköping, Sweden. Med Teach 2002;24:280‑5.
7. Dornan T, Bundy C. What can experience add to early medical
education? Consensus survey. BMJ 2004;329:834.
8. Bahari A, Puramin R, Chobdar N. The integration of educational
programs in graduate studies of physiopathology from semester
to course in Mashhad University of Medical Sciences. Horizon
Med Edu Dev 2016;7:29‑32.
9. Dulloo P, Vedi N, Gandotra A. Impact of horizontal and vertical
integration: Learning and perception in first‑year medical
students. Natl J Physiol Pharm Pharmacol 2017;7:1170‑6.
10. Rooholamini A, Amini M, Bazrafkan L, Dehghani MR,
Esmaeilzadeh Z, Nabeiei P, et al. Program evaluation of an
integrated basic science medical curriculum in shiraz medical
school, Using CIPP evaluation model. J Adv Med Educ Prof
2017;5:148‑54.
11. Chaudhary ZK, Mylopoulos M, Barnett R, Sockalingam S,
Hawkins M, O’Brien JD, et al. Reconsidering basic: Integrating
social and behavioral sciences to support learning. Acad Med
2019;94:S73‑8.
12. van der Hoeven D, Zhu L, Busaidy K, Quock RL, Holland JN,
van der Hoeven R. Integration of basic and clinical sciences:
Student perceptions. Med Sci Edu 2020;30:243‑52.
13. Kumaravel B, Jenkins H, Chepkin S, Kirisnathas S, Hearn J,
Stocker CJ, et al. A prospective study evaluating the integration
of a multifaceted evidence‑based medicine curriculum into early
years in an undergraduate medical school. BMC Med Educ
2020;20:278.
14. Mishra AK, Mohandas R, Mani M. Integration of different
disciplines in medicine: A vertical integrated teaching session
for undergraduate medical students. J Adv Med Educ Prof
2020;8:172‑7.
15. Arain SA, Kumar S, Yaqinuddin A, Meo SA. Vertical integration of
head, neck, and special senses module in undergraduate medical
curriculum. Adv Physiol Educ 2020;44:344‑9.
16. Mathur M, Mathur N, Saiyad S. Integrated teaching in medical
education: The novel approach. JRes Med Edu Ethic 2019;9:165‑73.
17. Brauer DG, Ferguson KJ. The integrated curriculum in medical
education: AMEE Guide No. 96. Med Teach 2015;37:312‑22.
18. Nasr K. Shiraz university school of medicine: Its foundation and
development. Arch Iran Med 2009;12:87‑92.
19. Amini M, Kojuri J, Mahbudi A, Lotfi F, Seghatoleslam A,
Karimian Z, et al. Implementation and evolution of the horizontal
integration at shiraz medical school. J Adv Med Educ Prof
2013;1:21‑7.
20. Forouzan B, Anbari KH, Rezaeian J, Shirkhani S, Gholami MR. The
necessity of implantation of horizontal integration plan of basic sciences and university academic staff and students, satisfaction.
Yafteh 2015;17:5‑14.
21. Dehghan A, Amini M, Sagheb MM, Shidmoosavi SM, Nabeiei P.
Early clinical exposure program in learning renal physiology.
J Adv Med Educ Prof 2017;5:172‑6.
22. Khonglah Y, Raphael V, Mishra J, Marbaniang E, Chowdhury Z,
DeyB. Relooking the curriculum and assessment in undergraduate
pathology. J Educ Health Promot 2019;8:116.
23. Kolahdouzan M, Mahmoudieh M, Rasti M, Omid A, Rostami A,
Yamani N. The effect of case‑based teaching and flipped classroom
methods in comparison with lecture method on learning and
satisfaction of internship students in surgery. J Educ Health
Promot 2020;9:256.
24. Baghdady MT, Carnahan H, Lam EW, Woods NN. Integration
of basic sciences and clinical sciences in oral radiology education
for dental students. J Dent Educ 2013;77:757‑63.
25. Willey JM, Lim YS, Kwiatkowski T. Modeling integration:
Co‑teaching basic and clinical sciences medicine in the classroom.
Adv Med Educ Pract 2018;9:739‑51.
26. Wijnen‑Meijer M, van den Broek S, Koens F, Ten Cate O. Vertical
integration in medical education: The broader perspective. BMC
Med Educ 2020;20:509. 
Journal of Education and Health Promotion
Volume 11, Issue 9
October 2021
Pages 1-6

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us