The Long-term Impact of Preclinical Education on Medical Students' Opinions About Radiology

Rationale and Objectives

It has been previously shown that integrating radiology teaching into the first year of medical education has an immediate positive effect on medical students’ attitudes toward the practice of radiology. The purpose of this study is to determine whether these changes in attitude persist through the clinical years of training and whether preclinical exposure to radiology has a long-term effect on medical students’ opinions about radiology and radiologists.

Materials and Methods

The first-year medical curriculum at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine was revised between the 2003 and 2004 academic years, with 2.5 hours of additional radiology lectures integrated into the existing preclinical coursework. Additionally, radiology consult sessions were integrated into problem-based learning sessions. An initial survey was administered in the preclinical years of training to assess first-year medical students’ attitudes toward radiology before and after the changes to the curriculum. A follow-up survey was administered before graduation to determine whether the changes in attitude revealed in the first survey persisted throughout the remaining years of training, and to assess students’ opinions about negative radiologist stereotypes. Students who had undergone the revised curriculum were compared to students who had undergone the traditional curriculum.

Results

There were statistically significant differences between the two graduating classes in terms of interest in, and perceptions of, the field of radiology. At graduation, students exposed to the revised preclinical curriculum with a greater exposure to radiology had a greater interest in radiology as a discipline and were more likely to have taken senior electives in radiology. These graduating students were also less likely to agree with negative stereotypes about radiologists.

Conclusions

Dedicated medical student teaching from an academic radiologist during the first year of medical school has a positive, long-lasting effect on medical students’ attitudes toward radiology. The prevalence of negative stereotypes about radiologists among graduating medical students can be reduced by appropriate teaching of radiology in the preclinical years of medical school.

In a traditional North American medical school curriculum, radiology is not formally taught until the clinical years of training (the third and fourth years of medical school) ( ). Radiology is sometimes introduced during the preclinical years as a peripheral element in anatomy or organ pathology courses, but dedicated lectures are unusual ( ). Even in the clinical years, radiology is not commonly part of the core curriculum, but is instead usually offered as an elective in the final year, after many medical students have already decided on a specialty. Medical students’ main exposure to radiology may come only at the hands of clinicians, instead of radiologists, and may be relegated to occasional reviews of radiographic findings from patients on the clinical services.

Because of the late exposure to radiology, medical students may not recognize that they have an interest in the specialty until late in their training ( ). It may be too late to engage in radiology research or to spend time with radiologists and learn more about the specialty. Some students who would otherwise pursue a career in radiology might not know enough about the specialty to consider it in their decision-making. And perhaps of greatest concern, medical students who have not been exposed to radiology may be more likely to harbor negative stereotypes about radiologists after they have completed their training ( ). Such misconceptions could contribute to antagonism between clinicians and radiologists, promote turf battles, and prevent unified action between physician specialties on shared political issues.

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Materials and methods

Changes to Medical School Curriculum

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Medical Student Survey

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Statistical Analysis

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Results

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Table 1

Graduating Medical Students’ Opinions about Radiologist Stereotypes

Statement Class of 2007 Class of 2008 Difference Radiologists have almost no patient contact. 2.39 2.45 0.06 ⁎ Radiologists work about as many hours as physicians in other nonsurgical specialties. † 3.29 3.21 –0.08 ⁎ Clinicians can interpret radiologic images almost as accurately as radiologists. 3.85 4.08 0.23 ⁎ Radiologists’ compensation (salary) is fair when compared to other physicians. † 3.21 3.32 0.11 Radiology residency is easier than other residencies. 2.59 2.90 0.31 ⁎ Radiologists are exposed to a worrisome amount of radiation over the course of their careers. 3.67 3.67 0.00 The workload in radiology is less demanding than in other medical specialties. 2.67 2.94 0.27 ⁎ Summed Likert 20.67 21.51 0.84 ⁎

Values are the average response on Likert scale of 1: strongly agree; 2: agree; 3: neutral; 4: disagree; 5: strongly disagree.

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Discussion

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Appendix 1 Medical Student Survey

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Part I: Opinions

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

1 Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

2 Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

3 Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

4 Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

5 Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Part II: Stereotypes about Radiologists

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

References

1. Collins J., Dotti S.L., Albanese M.A.: Teaching radiology to medical students: an integrated approach. Acad Radiol 2002; 9: pp. 1046-1053.
2. Allen S.S., Roberts K.: An integrated structure-function module for first year medical students: correlating anatomy, clinical medicine and radiology. Med Educ 2002; 36: pp. 1106-1107.
3. Gunderman R.B., Siddiqui A.R., Heitkamp D.E., et. al.: The vital role of radiology in the medical school curriculum. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180: pp. 1239-1242.
4. Gunderman R.B.: Medical students are our future. JACR 2005; 2: pp. 795-797.
5. Branstetter B.F., Faix L.E., Humphrey A.L., et. al.: Preclinical medical student training in radiology: the effect of early exposure. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 188: pp. W9-W14.
6. Erkonen W.E., Albanese M.A., Smith W.L., et. al.: Effectiveness of teaching radiologic image interpretation in gross anatomy. Invest Radiol 1992; 27: pp. 264-266.
7. Donnelly L.F., Racadio J.M., Strife J.L.: Exposure of first-year medical students to a pediatric radiology research program: is there an influence on career choice?. Pediat Radiol 2007; 37: pp. 876-878.
8. Feigin D.S., Magid D., Smirniotopoulos J.G., et. al.: Learning and retaining normal radiographic chest anatomy: does preclinical exposure improve student performance?. Acad Radiol 2007; 14: pp. 1137-1142.
9. Ekelund L., Langer R.: Radiology is a perfect tool for problem based learning. Acad Radiol 2004; 11: pp. 480.
10. Albanese M.A., Mitchell S.: Problem-based learning: a review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Acad Med 1993; 68: pp. 52-81.
11. Durfee S.M., Jain S., Shaffer K.: Incorporating electronic media into medical student education: a survey of AMSER members on computer and web use in radiology courses. Acad Radiol 2003; 10: pp. 205-210.
12. Spector P.E.: Summated rating scale construction.1992.Sage PublicationsLondon
13. Lewis P.J., Schaffer K.: Developing a national medical student curriculum in radiology. JACR 2005; 2: pp. 8-11.
14. Collins J.: Teacher or educational scholar?. J Am Coll Radiol 2004; 1: pp. 135-139.
15. Branstetter B.F.: Preclinical medical student training in radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189: pp. W167.
16. Bui-Mansfield L.T., Chew F.S.: Radiologists as clinical tutors in a problem-based medical school curriculum. Acad Radiol 2001; 8: pp. 657-663.
17. Subramaniam R.M., Scally P., Gibson R.: Problem-based learning and medical student radiology teaching. Australas Radiol 2004; 48: pp. 335-338.
18. Ganske I., Su T., Loukas M., et. al.: Teaching methods in anatomy courses in North American medical schools the role of radiology. Acad Radiol 2006; 13: pp. 1038-1046.

The Long-term Impact of Preclinical Education on Medical Students' Opinions About Radiology

Rationale and Objectives

Materials and Methods

Results

Conclusions

Materials and methods

Changes to Medical School Curriculum

Medical Student Survey

Statistical Analysis

Results

Discussion

Appendix 1

Medical Student Survey

Part I: Opinions

Part II: Stereotypes about Radiologists

References

Further Reading

Abstracts of Funded National Institutes of Health Grants

Accurate Automatic Papillary Muscle Identification for Quantitative Left Ventricle Mass Measurements in Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging

All you need to know