-
Reviews
Back to Reviews
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
The authors are sharing the efforts taken by XUSOM, Aruba for modernizing their medical undergraduate degree program. They report introduction of (or plans to introduce) a wide array of modules, including one on "Medical Humanities". This is expected to make the learning process more interesting (more student-centered).
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
While PBL, SPs, etc, are not entirely new, the module on Medical Humanities appear to be novel.
-
Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
Yes.
-
Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
The authors have shared their experience for the "Medical Humanities" model. Other modules / teaching methods are yet to be implemented. Hope the authors will be in a position to share their experiences on the entire program at a later date.
-
If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?
NA
-
Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?
Yes.
-
Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?
Student feedback on the yet-to-be-tried teaching methods / modules might improve the paper further. Hope they are in the offing.
-
Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?
Yes. These appear to be replicable in other settings. The work is worth sharing in a Seminar. Doing so will not only help disseminate their good practices, but also learn from others to make it even better.
-
Other Comments:
Overall, the manuscript gives good reading. Proof reading is recommended.
-
Competing interests:
Yes. One of the authors is known to me.
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
No -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
No
-
References:
None -
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
Have been teaching in a medical school for 10 years, and am especially familiar with family health visit.
- How to cite: Anonymous.'Modernizing' the Basic Sciences MD program at XUSOM, Aruba[Review of the article ''Modernizing' the Basic Sciences MD program at XUSOM, Aruba ' by Dubey A].WebmedCentral 2013;4(4):WMCRW002704
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
The authors show us their intention to modify the method of teaching in their school of medicine. This is is very improtant specially for the developing countries.
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
The overall claims are not novel but in Aruba I think it is novel.
-
Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
Yes
-
Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
As a report there are not results as far as now.
-
If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?
NA
-
Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?
Yes. The authors explain it precisely.
-
Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?
NA
-
Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?
Yes. They show how they are intending to improve their medical school.
-
Other Comments:
I would like to encourage papers like this because there is a lack of good work being done in the field of medical teaching, specially for the developing countries.
-
Competing interests:
None
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
No -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
No
-
References:
None -
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
I have been a teacher of medicine for the last 30 years.
- How to cite: Bedin V .Modernizing the basic sciences MD program at XUSOM, Aruba[Review of the article ''Modernizing' the Basic Sciences MD program at XUSOM, Aruba ' by Dubey A].WebmedCentral 2013;4(4):WMCRW002702
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
The main claims are about upgrading the current methods of teaching of and learning by students in XUSOM Aruba. The authors report the machineris put in place in the school to make the program more mordern with the hope to improve and promote learning amongst students. This is good.
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
The report from these authors is essentially showing what the school is doing at the moment and it has planned to do as well as the expected outcomes.
-
Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
Fairly done.
-
Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
No results! just a report.
-
If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?
NA
-
Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?
The approach to mordernize the program is valid as is what is obtained currently in most of the UK medical and other Arab countries medical schools.
-
Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?
For better outcome, the authors should have informed the readers if there are facilities put in place in trying to modernize the program. Are there more man power, more experties in each subject? what method or means do the author think will be appropiate to measure outcomes of these upgrade?
-
Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?
What is reported in this manuscript is not new.
-
Other Comments:
No
-
Competing interests:
None
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
No -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
No
-
References:
None -
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
Lecturer in Medical schools in Nigeria for years.
- How to cite: Yahaya A I.Upgrading the Basic Medical Sciences MD Progam at XUSOM, Aruba[Review of the article ''Modernizing' the Basic Sciences MD program at XUSOM, Aruba ' by Dubey A].WebmedCentral 2013;4(4):WMCRW002693
All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a
This paper highlights the various initiatives taken for curricular reform at XUSOM, Aruba.
There are evidences available for all the initiatves mentioned in the paper. However, integrating all these initiatives is novel step.
Yes
Yes
NA
NA
literature supporting effect of implementation of these initiatives at country level would have added strength to the paper. Meaning if the vision of the school is "creating leaders in primary care medicine and has recently (from the January 2013 semester)", why and how these components were selected (Integrated curriculum, SP, MH etc). What experiences available in different countries to achieve the vision of school by implementing these components.
Yes. I would wait to see the results of implementing these changes in curriculum.
Well written paper and a very good read.
None
Yes
No
None
Core faculty member of Medical Education Unit. FAIMER PSG-FRI fellow.