Dataset Information

The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey: an analysis of 47,258 timetabled teaching events in 25 UK medical schools relating to timing, duration, teaching formats, teaching content, and problem-based learning.

ABSTRACT:

Background

What subjects UK medical schools teach, what ways they teach subjects, and how much they teach those subjects is unclear. Whether teaching differences matter is a separate, important question. This study provides a detailed picture of timetabled undergraduate teaching activity at 25 UK medical schools, particularly in relation to problem-based learning (PBL).

Method

The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey used detailed timetables provided by 25 schools with standard 5-year courses. Timetabled teaching events were coded in terms of course year, duration, teaching format, and teaching content. Ten schools used PBL. Teaching times from timetables were validated against two other studies that had assessed GP teaching and lecture, seminar, and tutorial times.

Results

A total of 47,258 timetabled teaching events in the academic year 2014/2015 were analysed, including SSCs (student-selected components) and elective studies. A typical UK medical student receives 3960 timetabled hours of teaching during their 5-year course. There was a clear difference between the initial 2 years which mostly contained basic medical science content and the later 3 years which mostly consisted of clinical teaching, although some clinical teaching occurs in the first 2 years. Medical schools differed in duration, format, and content of teaching. Two main factors underlay most of the variation between schools, Traditional vs PBL teaching and Structured vs Unstructured teaching. A curriculum map comparing medical schools was constructed using those factors. PBL schools differed on a number of measures, having more PBL teaching time, fewer lectures, more GP teaching, less surgery, less formal teaching of basic science, and more sessions with unspecified content.

Discussion

UK medical schools differ in both format and content of teaching. PBL and non-PBL schools clearly differ, albeit with substantial variation within groups, and overlap in the middle. The important question of whether differences in teaching matter in terms of outcomes is analysed in a companion study (MedDifs) which examines how teaching differences relate to university infrastructure, entry requirements, student perceptions, and outcomes in Foundation Programme and postgraduate training.

SUBMITTER: Devine OP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7222546 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey: an analysis of 47,258 timetabled teaching events in 25 UK medical schools relating to timing, duration, teaching formats, teaching content, and problem-based learning.

Devine Oliver Patrick OP Harborne Andrew Christopher AC Horsfall Hugo Layard HL Joseph Tobin T Marshall-Andon Tess T Samuels Ryan R Kearsley Joshua William JW Abbas Nadine N Baig Hassan H Beecham Joseph J Benons Natasha N Caird Charlie C Clark Ryan R Cope Thomas T Coultas James J Debenham Luke L Douglas Sarah S Eldridge Jack J Hughes-Gooding Thomas T Jakubowska Agnieszka A Jones Oliver O Lancaster Eve E MacMillan Calum C McAllister Ross R Merzougui Wassim W Phillips Ben B Phillips Simon S Risk Omar O Sage Adam A Sooltangos Aisha A Spencer Robert R Tajbakhsh Roxanne R Adesalu Oluseyi O Aganin Ivan I Ahmed Ammar A Aiken Katherine K Akeredolu Alimatu-Sadia AS Alam Ibrahim I Ali Aamna A Anderson Richard R Ang Jia Jun JJ Anis Fady Sameh FS Aojula Sonam S Arthur Catherine C Ashby Alena A Ashraf Ahmed A Aspinall Emma E Awad Mark M Yahaya Abdul-Muiz Azri AA Badhrinarayanan Shreya S Bandyopadhyay Soham S Barnes Sam S Bassey-Duke Daisy D Boreham Charlotte C Braine Rebecca R Brandreth Joseph J Carrington Zoe Z Cashin Zoe Z Chatterjee Shaunak S Chawla Mehar M Chean Chung Shen CS Clements Chris C Clough Richard R Coulthurst Jessica J Curry Liam L Daniels Vinnie Christine VC Davies Simon S Davis Rebecca R De Waal Hanelie H Desai Nasreen N Douglas Hannah H Druce James J Ejamike Lady-Namera LN Esere Meron M Eyre Alex A Fazmin Ibrahim Talal IT Fitzgerald-Smith Sophia S Ford Verity V Freeston Sarah S Garnett Katherine K General Whitney W Gilbert Helen H Gowie Zein Z Grafton-Clarke Ciaran C Gudka Keshni K Gumber Leher L Gupta Rishi R Harlow Chris C Harrington Amy A Heaney Adele A Ho Wing Hang Serene WHS Holloway Lucy L Hood Christina C Houghton Eleanor E Houshangi Saba S Howard Emma E Human Benjamin B Hunter Harriet H Hussain Ifrah I Hussain Sami S Jackson-Taylor Richard Thomas RT Jacob-Ramsdale Bronwen B Janjuha Ryan R Jawad Saleh S Jelani Muzzamil M Johnston David D Jones Mike M Kalidindi Sadhana S Kalsi Savraj S Kalyanasundaram Asanish A Kane Anna A Kaur Sahaj S Al-Othman Othman Khaled OK Khan Qaisar Q Khullar Sajan S Kirkland Priscilla P Lawrence-Smith Hannah H Leeson Charlotte C Lenaerts Julius Elisabeth Richard JER Long Kerry K Lubbock Simon S Burrell Jamie Mac Donald JMD Maguire Rachel R Mahendran Praveen P Majeed Saad S Malhotra Prabhjot Singh PS Mandagere Vinay V Mantelakis Angelos A McGovern Sophie S Mosuro Anjola A Moxley Adam A Mustoe Sophie S Myers Sam S Nadeem Kiran K Nasseri Reza R Newman Tom T Nzewi Richard R Ogborne Rosalie R Omatseye Joyce J Paddock Sophie S Parkin James J Patel Mohit M Pawar Sohini S Pearce Stuart S Penrice Samuel S Purdy Julian J Ramjan Raisa R Randhawa Ratan R Rasul Usman U Raymond-Taggert Elliot E Razey Rebecca R Razzaghi Carmel C Reel Eimear E Revell Elliot John EJ Rigbye Joanna J Rotimi Oloruntobi O Said Abdelrahman A Sanders Emma E Sangal Pranoy P Grandal Nora Sangvik NS Shah Aadam A Shah Rahul Atul RA Shotton Oliver O Sims Daniel D Sims Daniel D Smart Katie K Smith Martha Amy MA Smith Nick N Sopian Aninditya Salma AS South Matthew M Speller Jessica J Syer Tom J TJ Ta Ngan Hong NH Tadross Daniel D Thompson Benjamin B Trevett Jess J Tyler Matthew M Ullah Roshan R Utukuri Mrudula M Vadera Shree S Van Den Tooren Harriet H Venturini Sara S Vijayakumar Aradhya A Vine Melanie M Wellbelove Zoe Z Wittner Liora L Yong Geoffrey Hong Kiat GHK Ziyada Farris F McManus I C IC

BMC medicine 20200514 1

<h4>Background</h4>What subjects UK medical schools teach, what ways they teach subjects, and how much they teach those subjects is unclear. Whether teaching differences matter is a separate, important question. This study provides a detailed picture of timetabled undergraduate teaching activity at 25 UK medical schools, particularly in relation to problem-based learning (PBL).<h4>Method</h4>The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey used detailed timetables provided by 25 school ...[more]

PMID: 32404194

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis systematic review aims to estimate the proportion of medical schools and teaching hospitals with conflicts of interest (COI) policies for health research and education, to describe the provisions included in the policies and their impact on research outputs and educational quality or content.MethodsExperimental and observational studies reporting at least one of the above mentioned aims were included irrespective of language, publication type or geographical setting. MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase and the Cochrane Methodology Register were searched from inception to March 2020. Methodological study quality was assessed using an amended version of the Joanna Briggs Institute's checklist for prevalence studies.ResultsTwenty-two cross-sectional studies were included; all were conducted in high-income countries. Of these, 20 studies estimated the prevalence of COI policies, which ranged from 5% to 100% (median: 85%). Twenty studies assessed the provisions included in COI policies with different assessment methods. Of these, nine analysed the strength of the content of medical schools' COI policies using various assessment tools that looked at a range of policy domains. The mean standardised summary score of policy strength ranged from 2% to 73% (median: 30%), with a low score indicating a weak policy. North American institutions more frequently had COI policies and their content was rated as stronger than policies from European institutions. None of the included studies assessed the impact of COI policies on research outputs or educational quality or content.ConclusionPrevalence of COI policies at medical schools and teaching hospitals varied greatly in high-income countries. No studies estimated the prevalence of policies in low to middle-income countries. The content of COI policies varied widely and while most European institutions ranked poorly, in North America more medical schools had strong policies. No studies were identified on impact of COI policies on research outputs and educational quality or content.

Dataset Information

The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey: an analysis of 47,258 timetabled teaching events in 25 UK medical schools relating to timing, duration, teaching formats, teaching content, and problem-based learning.

Background

Method

Results

Discussion

Publications

The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey: an analysis of 47,258 timetabled teaching events in 25 UK medical schools relating to timing, duration, teaching formats, teaching content, and problem-based learning.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets