背景:牙医的主要工作区域是头颈部,受颅神经支配。每天,牙医必须进行局部麻醉,以确保无痛治疗,并区分牙齿疼痛和神经病,以避免虐待。因此,神经解剖学训练,尤其是在脑神经上,对临床实践非常重要。为了通过课程,必须不断评估培训的质量,并调查学生的表现和子领域与其工作的相关性之间是否存在相关性。
方法:要解决此问题,分析了2014/2015年冬季学期至2019/2020年冬季学期在柏林Charité-Universityätsmedizin牙科学生神经解剖学课程中MC考试的结果。每个问题都被分配到神经解剖学的特定子领域。然后,我们将颅神经和颅神经核(临床相关)与其余子场(临床上较少/不相关)进行比较,以调查学生在与牙医的临床实践更一致的解剖子场中是否表现更好。我们还对牙科学生进行了匿名调查(n=201)。
结果:从2014/2015年冬季学期到2019/2020年冬季学期,学生表现明显(***,p<0.001)在MC检查的临床相关问题上比在较少/非临床相关问题上更好。然而,当分别查看11个学期中的每个学期时,实际上只有三个学期在临床相关问题上的表现明显更好.我们的调查还表明,学生认为颅神经和颅神经核的子域是最相关的,并出于自己的兴趣对其进行了更深入的研究。
结论:研究表明,学生认为颅神经和颅神经核的亚区是最相关的。然而,学生表现与临床相关问题之间没有直接相关性.仅使用学生表现作为相关性指标并不是最佳的,因为学习动机等因素会产生重大影响。
结论:更大的临床相关性会影响学生出于自己的兴趣而更深入地学习什么,但不会影响MC考试的结果,有利于亚专业。根据现有证据,建议重新考虑神经解剖学课程的结构。
BACKGROUND: The dentist\'s main working area is the head and neck region, which is innervated by the cranial nerves. On a daily basis, dentists must administer local anaesthesia to ensure pain-free treatment and differentiate between dental pain and neuropathies to avoid mistreatment. Therefore, neuroanatomical training, especially on the cranial nerves, is of immense importance for clinical practice. In order to adopt the curriculum, it is essential to constantly evaluate the quality of the training and to investigate whether there is a correlation between the students\' performance and the relevance of the subfields to their work.
METHODS: To address this issue, the results of MC exams in the neuroanatomy course for dental students at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin from winter semester 2014/2015 to winter semester 2019/2020 were analysed. Each question was assigned to a specific subfield of neuroanatomy. We then compared cranial nerves and cranial nerve nuclei (clinically relevant) with the remaining subfields (clinically less/not relevant) to investigate whether students performed better in anatomy subfields that are more aligned with the clinical practice of a dentist. We also conducted an anonymous survey (n=201) of the dental students.
RESULTS: From winter semester 2014/2015 to winter semester 2019/2020, students performed significantly (***, p< 0.001) better on the clinically relevant questions of the MC examination than on the less/not clinically relevant questions. However, when looking at each of the eleven semesters separately, only three semesters actually performed significantly better on the clinically relevant questions. Our survey also showed that students perceived the subfield of cranial nerves and cranial nerve nuclei to be the most relevant and studied it more intensively out of their own interest.
CONCLUSIONS: The
study showed that students perceived the subfield of cranial nerves and cranial nerve nuclei to be the most relevant. However, there was no direct correlation between student performance and clinically relevant questions. Using student performance alone as an indicator of relevance is not optimal, as factors such as motivation to learn can have a significant impact.
CONCLUSIONS: Greater clinical relevance influences what students learn more intensively out of their own interest, but does not influence the results of the MC examination in favour of the subspecialty. Based on the available evidence, it is recommended that the structure of the neuroanatomy course be reconsidered.