Perceptions of Medical Students About Bedside Teaching in a Medical School
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Bedside teaching is an important and established learning tool in medical education. However there is a decline in bedside teachings over the years throughout the world including Nepal, due to advancement in medical technology, clinical skills labs and simulation techniques. This study aimed to find out the perception of Nepalese medical students towards different domains of bedside teaching. METHODS: This was a descriptive cross-sectional study. A questionnaire consisting of Likert scale, open ended and closed ended questions was developed on different aspect of bedside teaching and the filled questionnaires were included for analysis. RESULTS: Three hundred and six questionnaires were included. Almost all of medical students responded that bedside teaching is a useful learning modality in clinical teaching 304 (99.3%) and provides active learning in real context 291 (95%). The majority of medical students 233 (76%) were satisfied with the steps of history taking, examination followed by management discussion employed at bedside teaching. The students 223 (73%) were satisfied, how to elicit signs following demonstration of clinical exam by teachers at bedside. However majority 196 (64%) felt lack of individual opportunity at bedside. According to students, focussing more on practically oriented clinical skills with proper supervision would improve learning while hindering factors were large number of students and patient's uncooperativeness. Good communication was considered the best method of alleviating patient discomfort at bedside teaching in this study. CONCLUSIONS: The study concluded that medical students have positive response and learning attitudes towards different aspects of bedside teaching.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".