Dataset Information

What do international health electives and state examination scores have in common? - A cohort study to compare the results of written medical licensing examinations with the participation in international health electives during the final year of undergraduate medical education in Germany.

ABSTRACT: Objective: The final year of undergraduate medical education in Germany is called the practical year (PY), where emphasis is placed on developing practical skills requisite of soon-to-be physicians. Many students choose to spend part of this year abroad, yet little is known about their results on the medical licensing examinations. Is there a predisposition of high-performing students to go abroad as compared to lower performers? Are international health electives during the PY followed by higher scores in the final section of the German medical licensing examination (GMLE2)? Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among undergraduate medical students at the LMU Munich, who participated in the final section of the German medical licensing examination between autumn 2009 and spring 2011. Of the 1,731 eligible students, 554 (32%) participated in our study. We analyzed for statistical associations of international health electives with written test scores of both sections of the medical licensing examination as well as grades earned during medical school training. We then used multiple regression analysis to identify relevant predictors of GMLE2 scores. Results: Approximately half of study participants pursued international health electives during the PY (51.1%). The number of students going abroad increased with the scores achieved on the first section of the medical licensing examination (GMLE1, p<0.001). Stratified by their GMLE1 scores students who pursued electives abroad during their PY achieved higher GMLE2 scores (p<0.001). The strongest predictor for GMLE2 scores were grades obtained during medical school training; age and study duration indicated lower scores; and those engaging in international health electives correlated with higher scores. Conclusions: Students with higher GMLE1 scores go abroad during PY more often. Beyond that, students who pursue international health electives achieve higher GMLE2 scores than those who stay in Germany during PY. There is an unmet need for additional research to identify which factors make these students perform better and what motivates them to go abroad.

SUBMITTER: Stormann S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6326405 | biostudies-other | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What do international health electives and state examination scores have in common? - A cohort study to compare the results of written medical licensing examinations with the participation in international health electives during the final year of undergraduate medical education in Germany.

Störmann Sylvère S Angstwurm Matthias W MW

GMS journal for medical education 20181130 5

<b>Objective:</b> The final year of undergraduate medical education in Germany is called the practical year (PY), where emphasis is placed on developing practical skills requisite of soon-to-be physicians. Many students choose to spend part of this year abroad, yet little is known about their results on the medical licensing examinations. Is there a predisposition of high-performing students to go abroad as compared to lower performers? Are international health electives during the PY followed b ...[more]

PMID: 30637318

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFailure rates on medical specialist final summative examinations in Australia are high, regardless of speciality. Examination failure can have detrimental psycho-social, financial and job security effects on the trainee, while delays in completion of training adversely impacts workforce growth and health outcomes for the community. The study aimed to explore the preparation factors that contribute to ophthalmology trainee success in their final summative examination.MethodsSemi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 29 participants via telephone or Zoom with ophthalmology trainees and Fellows. To be eligible, interviewees had to have sat the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists Advanced Clinical Examination (RACE) within the past five years or were providing supervision to trainees preparing for RACE. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed.ResultsExamination success was underpinned by six themes relating to preparation: (i) 'Those who fail to plan, plan to fail', which related to development and adherence to a study plan; (ii) 'It takes a village' encompassed trainees establishing and activating personal and professional supports; (iii) 'Get to know your opponent', which encompassed developing an understanding of the examination construct, format and requirements; (iv) 'There is no substitute for hard work', which related to intensive study over a period of 12-18 months; (v) 'Keep pace with the herd', which referred to benchmarking preparation efforts and progress against peers; and (vi) 'Don't jump the gun', which related to ensuring readiness to sit.ConclusionsMaximising medical specialist examination pass rates is in the best interest of trainees, training Colleges, health care systems and communities. Recognising and facilitating preparation approaches that foster success in final summative examinations are the collective responsibility of trainees, specialist training Colleges, training networks and health systems. Trainees need to plan for examination success, be self-determined to commit to intensive study over an extended time period and be realistic about their readiness to sit.

Project description:BackgroundOver the past 2 years, researchers have used various medical licensing examinations to test whether ChatGPT (OpenAI) possesses accurate medical knowledge. The performance of each version of ChatGPT on the medical licensing examination in multiple environments showed remarkable differences. At this stage, there is still a lack of a comprehensive understanding of the variability in ChatGPT's performance on different medical licensing examinations.ObjectiveIn this study, we reviewed all studies on ChatGPT performance in medical licensing examinations up to March 2024. This review aims to contribute to the evolving discourse on artificial intelligence (AI) in medical education by providing a comprehensive analysis of the performance of ChatGPT in various environments. The insights gained from this systematic review will guide educators, policymakers, and technical experts to effectively and judiciously use AI in medical education.MethodsWe searched the literature published between January 1, 2022, and March 29, 2024, by searching query strings in Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus. Two authors screened the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and independently assessed the quality of the literature concerning Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. We conducted both qualitative and quantitative analyses.ResultsA total of 45 studies on the performance of different versions of ChatGPT in medical licensing examinations were included in this study. GPT-4 achieved an overall accuracy rate of 81% (95% CI 78-84; P<.01), significantly surpassing the 58% (95% CI 53-63; P<.01) accuracy rate of GPT-3.5. GPT-4 passed the medical examinations in 26 of 29 cases, outperforming the average scores of medical students in 13 of 17 cases. Translating the examination questions into English improved GPT-3.5's performance but did not affect GPT-4. GPT-3.5 showed no difference in performance between examinations from English-speaking and non-English-speaking countries (P=.72), but GPT-4 performed better on examinations from English-speaking countries significantly (P=.02). Any type of prompt could significantly improve GPT-3.5's (P=.03) and GPT-4's (P<.01) performance. GPT-3.5 performed better on short-text questions than on long-text questions. The difficulty of the questions affected the performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. In image-based multiple-choice questions (MCQs), ChatGPT's accuracy rate ranges from 13.1% to 100%. ChatGPT performed significantly worse on open-ended questions than on MCQs.ConclusionsGPT-4 demonstrates considerable potential for future use in medical education. However, due to its insufficient accuracy, inconsistent performance, and the challenges posed by differing medical policies and knowledge across countries, GPT-4 is not yet suitable for use in medical education.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42024506687; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=506687.

Dataset Information

What do international health electives and state examination scores have in common? - A cohort study to compare the results of written medical licensing examinations with the participation in international health electives during the final year of undergraduate medical education in Germany.

Publications

What do international health electives and state examination scores have in common? - A cohort study to compare the results of written medical licensing examinations with the participation in international health electives during the final year of undergraduate medical education in Germany.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets