Introduction of the Modified Neuroanatomy Motivation Questionnaire and Its Role in Comparing Medical Student Attitudes Towards Learning Neuroanatomy Between Neuro-enthusiasts and Standard Students.

BACKGROUND: Neurophobia has been identified as a potential barrier to adequate knowledge of neurology in the medical community, and therefore to patient safety. There is a drive to identify the source of neurophobia, in the hope of tackling it. Comparing the learning motivations of standard medical students with those who enjoy neuroanatomy may be a way of doing this. METHODS: The science motivation questionnaire (SMQ) was modified for neuroanatomy. It was distributed to three cohorts of second year medical students and students attending the extracurricular National Undergraduate Neuroanatomy Competition (NUNC). Cohen's D test for effect size was used to compare standard medical students and those attending the NUNC. RESULTS: Five hundred ninety-seven questionnaires were completed by second year students, and 320 by NUNC attendees. The differences in motivation to learn neuroanatomy between the 2 groups mainly fell into themes of career motivation, personal relevance, intrinsic motivation and assessment anxiety. CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated the use of the SMQ in neuroanatomy, and found differences in motivators to learn neuroanatomy between self-selecting "neurophiles" and standard medical students, mainly relating to intrinsic motivation and its role in their lives. More research is needed to further explore these differences and how they might apply to interventions in medical school curricula.

Multiple-Choice versus Open-Ended Questions in Advanced Clinical Neuroanatomy: Using a National Neuroanatomy Assessment to Investigate Variability in Performance Using Different Question Types.

Methods of assessment in anatomy vary across medical schools in the United Kingdom (UK) and beyond; common methods include written, spotter, and oral assessment. However, there is limited research evaluating these methods in regards to student performance and perception. The National Undergraduate Neuroanatomy Competition (NUNC) is held annually for medical students throughout the UK. Prior to 2017, the competition asked open-ended questions (OEQ) in the anatomy spotter examination, and in subsequent years also asked single best answer (SBA) questions. The aim of this study is to assess medical students' performance on, and perception of, SBA and OEQ methods of assessment in a spotter style anatomy examination. Student examination performance was compared between OEQ (2013-2016) and SBA (2017-2020) for overall score and each neuroanatomical subtopic. Additionally, a questionnaire explored students' perceptions of SBAs. A total of 631 students attended the NUNC in the studied period. The average mark was significantly higher in SBAs compared to OEQs (60.6% vs. 43.1%, P < 0.0001)-this was true for all neuroanatomical subtopics except the cerebellum. Students felt that they performed better on SBA than OEQs, and diencephalon was felt to be the most difficult neuroanatomical subtopic (n = 38, 34.8%). Students perceived SBA questions to be easier than OEQs and performed significantly better on them in a neuroanatomical spotter examination. Further work is needed to ascertain whether this result is replicable throughout anatomy education.

Exploring UK medical school differences: the MedDifs study of selection, teaching, student and F1 perceptions, postgraduate outcomes and fitness to practise.

BACKGROUND: Medical schools differ, particularly in their teaching, but it is unclear whether such differences matter, although influential claims are often made. The Medical School Differences (MedDifs) study brings together a wide range of measures of UK medical schools, including postgraduate performance, fitness to practise issues, specialty choice, preparedness, satisfaction, teaching styles, entry criteria and institutional factors. METHOD: Aggregated data were collected for 50 measures across 29 UK medical schools. Data include institutional history (e.g. rate of production of hospital and GP specialists in the past), curricular influences (e.g. PBL schools, spend per student, staff-student ratio), selection measures (e.g. entry grades), teaching and assessment (e.g. traditional vs PBL, specialty teaching, self-regulated learning), student satisfaction, Foundation selection scores, Foundation satisfaction, postgraduate examination performance and fitness to practise (postgraduate progression, GMC sanctions). Six specialties (General Practice, Psychiatry, Anaesthetics, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Internal Medicine, Surgery) were examined in more detail. RESULTS: Medical school differences are stable across time (median alpha = 0.835). The 50 measures were highly correlated, 395 (32.2%) of 1225 correlations being significant with p < 0.05, and 201 (16.4%) reached a Tukey-adjusted criterion of p < 0.0025. Problem-based learning (PBL) schools differ on many measures, including lower performance on postgraduate assessments. While these are in part explained by lower entry grades, a surprising finding is that schools such as PBL schools which reported greater student satisfaction with feedback also showed lower performance at postgraduate examinations. More medical school teaching of psychiatry, surgery and anaesthetics did not result in more specialist trainees. Schools that taught more general practice did have more graduates entering GP training, but those graduates performed less well in MRCGP examinations, the negative correlation resulting from numbers of GP trainees and exam outcomes being affected both by non-traditional teaching and by greater historical production of GPs. Postgraduate exam outcomes were also higher in schools with more self-regulated learning, but lower in larger medical schools. A path model for 29 measures found a complex causal nexus, most measures causing or being caused by other measures. Postgraduate exam performance was influenced by earlier attainment, at entry to Foundation and entry to medical school (the so-called academic backbone), and by self-regulated learning. Foundation measures of satisfaction, including preparedness, had no subsequent influence on outcomes. Fitness to practise issues were more frequent in schools producing more male graduates and more GPs. CONCLUSIONS: Medical schools differ in large numbers of ways that are causally interconnected. Differences between schools in postgraduate examination performance, training problems and GMC sanctions have important implications for the quality of patient care and patient safety.

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: 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.

The National Undergraduate Neuroanatomy Competition: Lessons Learned from Partnering with Students to Innovate Undergraduate Neuroanatomy Education.

Undergraduates often perceive neuroscience to be a challenging discipline. As the scope of neuroscience continues to expand, it is important to provide undergraduates with sufficient opportunities to develop their knowledge and skills with the aim of encouraging the future generation of basic and clinical neuroscientists. Through our experience of developing the National Undergraduate Neuroanatomy Competition (NUNC), we have accrued an extensive volume of performance data and subjective insight into the delivery of undergraduate neuroanatomy education, which has the potential to inform how to better engage students within this field. More broadly, our group has implemented a technology enhanced learning platform alongside a peer-assisted teaching program. These achieve the dual purpose of compensating for the reduction in dedicated neuroanatomy teaching hours and encouraging undergraduates to develop an interest in the neurosciences. Here, we consider how improving the learning experience at an undergraduate level encourages further engagement in the neurosciences and the importance of this within the wider neuroscience community.