Diversity in approach to teaching and assessing ethics education for medical undergraduates: A scoping review.

Anne D Souza, Vina Vaswani
Author Information
  1. Anne D Souza: Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India.
  2. Vina Vaswani: Head of Forensic Medicine Department, Centre for Ethics, Yenepoya Medical College, Yenepoya (Deemed to Be University), Deralakatte, Mangaluru, India.

Abstract

There are diverse methods to teach medical ethics, and there is no single accepted approach towards its learning and assessment. The authors aim to explore the various strategies practised to teach undergraduate medical students the fundamentals of medical ethics and their evaluation. The authors reviewed the articles published from January 2014 to September 2019. The authors searched PubMed for the relevant publications and extracted the information using a data extraction sheet. Twenty-nine articles were included for the review, which fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Case-based discussions were a widely accepted strategy to learn ethics. The studies highlighted a mixed teaching approach using multiple teaching tools. A qualitative approach was preferred for the assessment through reflections, simulated patient interactions, and development of portfolios. However, there are gaps in the existing literature on the assessment strategies for ethics education. Heterogeneity still exists in the planning of the curricula, teaching, and assessment methods. These curricula suit the cultural and religious set up of that particular country. Case-based discussion is a popular teaching strategy, and there exist numerous innovative and cost-effective active teaching strategies. There is a need for studies that are more rigorous to address the evaluation of the ethics curricula. This review would help educators to choose their preferred approach based on their teaching environment.

Keywords

References

  1. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2014 Dec 15;15(2):235-7 [PMID: 25574287]
  2. J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2016 May 01;9:3 [PMID: 27471586]
  3. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2014 Dec 15;15(2):232-4 [PMID: 25574286]
  4. J Med Ethics. 1997 Oct;23(5):315-8 [PMID: 9358353]
  5. Acad Med. 2005 Dec;80(12):1143-52 [PMID: 16306292]
  6. J Med Biogr. 2013 Nov;21(4):198-9 [PMID: 24585824]
  7. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2014 Dec 15;15(2):208-12 [PMID: 25574280]
  8. Int J Appl Basic Med Res. 2017 Dec;7(Suppl 1):S52-S56 [PMID: 29344459]
  9. BMC Med Ethics. 2015 May 08;16:22 [PMID: 25952752]
  10. Sci Eng Ethics. 2017 Jun;23(3):883-912 [PMID: 27387564]
  11. Healthcare (Basel). 2017 Sep 12;5(3): [PMID: 28895903]
  12. MedEdPORTAL. 2018 Oct 09;14:10760 [PMID: 30800960]
  13. Crit Care. 2019 Jun 6;23(1):204 [PMID: 31171017]
  14. Med Educ. 2000 Jun;34(6):468-73 [PMID: 10792689]
  15. J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2013 Jan 01;6:1 [PMID: 23908762]
  16. GMS Z Med Ausbild. 2015 May 13;32(2):Doc17 [PMID: 26038682]
  17. Am J Nurs. 2014 May;114(5):49-56 [PMID: 24759479]
  18. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2014 Dec 15;15(2):202-7 [PMID: 25574279]
  19. BMC Med Ethics. 2017 Aug 10;18(1):49 [PMID: 28797266]
  20. London J Prim Care (Abingdon). 2014;6(6):164-8 [PMID: 25949739]
  21. Med Educ Online. 2017;22(1):1328257 [PMID: 28562234]
  22. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015 Sep;13(3):141-6 [PMID: 26134548]
  23. GMS J Med Educ. 2017 May 15;34(2):Doc23 [PMID: 28584871]
  24. J Community Genet. 2015 Jul;6(3):189-91 [PMID: 26007289]
  25. Issues Med Ethics. 2002 Jul-Sep;10(3):66-70 [PMID: 16335489]
  26. Cuad Bioet. 2015 May-Aug;26(87):303-9 [PMID: 26378602]
  27. Croat Med J. 2016 Oct 31;57(5):493-503 [PMID: 27815940]
  28. Med Teach. 2009 Nov;31(11):1013-7 [PMID: 19909042]
  29. Med Educ. 1984 Jul;18(4):284-97 [PMID: 6738402]
  30. Int J Appl Basic Med Res. 2016 Jul-Sep;6(3):157-63 [PMID: 27563578]
  31. Indian J Public Health. 2016 Apr-Jun;60(2):95-8 [PMID: 27350701]
  32. Pan Afr Med J. 2012;11:29 [PMID: 22514763]
  33. Acad Psychiatry. 2017 Aug;41(4):520-525 [PMID: 27644429]
  34. Acad Med. 2002 May;77(5):432-7 [PMID: 12010705]
  35. BMC Med Educ. 2018 Aug 28;18(1):204 [PMID: 30153822]
  36. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2019 Aug 12;6:2382120519869207 [PMID: 31448334]
  37. Hawaii J Med Public Health. 2014 Aug;73(8):262-4 [PMID: 25157328]
  38. Int J Med Educ. 2017 Apr 25;8:142-143 [PMID: 28447584]
  39. BMC Med Educ. 2016 Jul 27;16:193 [PMID: 27461194]
  40. Acta Bioeth. 2018 Jun;24(1):105-115 [PMID: 30765914]
  41. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2014 Dec 15;15(2):124-9 [PMID: 25574261]
  42. MedEdPORTAL. 2017 Mar 27;13:10562 [PMID: 30800764]
  43. Nurs Ethics. 2016 Mar;23(2):167-75 [PMID: 25547517]
  44. Med Educ. 2000 Feb;34(2):108-19 [PMID: 10652063]
  45. Int Online J Educ Teach. 2016;3(1):54-63 [PMID: 27213100]
  46. Acad Med. 2004 Mar;79(3):265-71 [PMID: 14985202]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0teachingethicsapproachmedicalassessmentmethodsauthorsstrategiesrevieweducationcurriculateachacceptedevaluationarticlesusingCase-basedstrategystudiespreferreddiversesingletowardslearningaimexplorevariouspractisedundergraduatestudentsfundamentalsreviewedpublishedJanuary2014September2019searchedPubMedrelevantpublicationsextractedinformationdataextractionsheetTwenty-nineincludedfulfilledinclusioncriteriadiscussionswidelylearnhighlightedmixedmultipletoolsqualitativereflectionssimulatedpatientinteractionsdevelopmentportfoliosHowevergapsexistingliteratureHeterogeneitystillexistsplanningsuitculturalreligioussetparticularcountrydiscussionpopularexistnumerousinnovativecost-effectiveactiveneedrigorousaddresshelpeducatorschoosebasedenvironmentDiversityassessingundergraduates:scopingAssessmentCurriculumEthicsMedicalundergraduatesReviewTeaching

Similar Articles

Cited By