Scholarlink

Background <p>Neurosurgical education is shifting toward methods that foster clinical reasoning and decision-making beyond traditional lectures. Small group discussions (SGD) promote collaborative learning, while clinical preceptorships (CP) offer individualized, hands-on training. However, limited research has compared their effectiveness in undergraduate neurosurgical education. This study evaluates the impact of CP and SGD on knowledge acquisition and clinical preparedness among sixth-year medical students.</p> Methods <p>In 2024, a quasi-experimental study involving 48 participants was conducted, including 31 sixth-year medical students assigned to either CP (<i>n</i> = 15) or SGD (<i>n</i> = 16), and 17 recently graduated physicians who served as the control group. Both groups completed pre- and post-intervention assessments that covered neurosurgical theory and clinical scenarios, based on the minimum requirements set by the Medical Council. Post-intervention outcomes were analyzed using t-tests. Correlation analysis examined the relationship between time and topic-specific retention. The control group consisted of interns rotating in the department of surgery who trained via the traditional method.</p> Results <p>Post-intervention, both CP and SGD improved post-test scores. The SGD format required 1.5&#xa0;h for 5–6 students, whereas the CP format required 1&#xa0;h per student, with this difference being statistically significant (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). CP students, however, significantly outperformed SGD in CT interpretation (85.0% vs. 70.0%, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01) and neurosurgical management modules (80.4% vs. 40.2%, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). CP participants also demonstrated greater knowledge gains and committed fewer conceptual errors, particularly in etiology and management. A significant negative correlation was observed between time since the intervention and knowledge retention (<i>r</i> = − 0.739, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001).</p> Conclusion <p>Neurosurgical education benefits from both SGD and CP. SGD enhances conceptual understanding and evidence-based learning, while CP strengthens hands-on application, CT interpretation, and management skills. To reinforce essential neurosurgical knowledge, a refresher session is recommended six months after the initial training.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparison of clinical preceptorship and small group discussion as educational modalities in modern neurosurgical education: outcomes and perspectives

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月15日

查看全文
  • Chonnawee Chaisawasthomrong,
  • Atthaporn Boongird

摘要

Background

Neurosurgical education is shifting toward methods that foster clinical reasoning and decision-making beyond traditional lectures. Small group discussions (SGD) promote collaborative learning, while clinical preceptorships (CP) offer individualized, hands-on training. However, limited research has compared their effectiveness in undergraduate neurosurgical education. This study evaluates the impact of CP and SGD on knowledge acquisition and clinical preparedness among sixth-year medical students.

Methods

In 2024, a quasi-experimental study involving 48 participants was conducted, including 31 sixth-year medical students assigned to either CP (n = 15) or SGD (n = 16), and 17 recently graduated physicians who served as the control group. Both groups completed pre- and post-intervention assessments that covered neurosurgical theory and clinical scenarios, based on the minimum requirements set by the Medical Council. Post-intervention outcomes were analyzed using t-tests. Correlation analysis examined the relationship between time and topic-specific retention. The control group consisted of interns rotating in the department of surgery who trained via the traditional method.

Results

Post-intervention, both CP and SGD improved post-test scores. The SGD format required 1.5 h for 5–6 students, whereas the CP format required 1 h per student, with this difference being statistically significant (p < 0.001). CP students, however, significantly outperformed SGD in CT interpretation (85.0% vs. 70.0%, p < 0.01) and neurosurgical management modules (80.4% vs. 40.2%, p < 0.001). CP participants also demonstrated greater knowledge gains and committed fewer conceptual errors, particularly in etiology and management. A significant negative correlation was observed between time since the intervention and knowledge retention (r = − 0.739, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Neurosurgical education benefits from both SGD and CP. SGD enhances conceptual understanding and evidence-based learning, while CP strengthens hands-on application, CT interpretation, and management skills. To reinforce essential neurosurgical knowledge, a refresher session is recommended six months after the initial training.