The academic success of students is a priority for all universities. This study identifies factors associated with first year academic success (performance and retention) that can be used to improve the quality of the student learning experience. A retrospective cohort study was conducted with a census of all 381 full time students enrolled in the Bachelor of Health Science at The University of Western Australia since the inception of the course in the year 2000. Factors found to be associated with successful academic performance were high matriculation score, female sex, non-Indigenous status, attendance at a government secondary school, upfront payment of university fees and completion of secondary school English Literature. The most influential factor on first year academic performance was a high matriculation score. Retention into second year was found to be influenced by participation in the university mentor scheme, non-Indigenous status and first year university marks. The factor of most influence on student retention was first year university marks. Valuable information about the performance and retention of first year Bachelor of Health Science students is provided in this study which is relevant to the operational priorities of any university.

No abstract

Objective: To describe the implementation of an integrated Aboriginal health curriculum into the medical course at the University of Western Australia (UWA) and the early effect on students’ perceptions of their knowledge and ability in the area of Aboriginal health. Design, setting and participants: Final‐year medical students at UWA in 2003 (first cohort) and 2004 (second cohort) were surveyed by questionnaire (with answers on a five‐point Likert scale) to assess their attitudes to various aspects of Aboriginal health. A subset of students provided open‐ended comments on key priorities in Aboriginal health, cultural security and suggestions for Aboriginal health policy. Interventions: Integrated learning experiences were implemented within each year of the medical course, based on specific learning outcomes in Aboriginal health. Main outcome measures: Changes in students’ self‐perceptions of their preparedness for and future commitment to working for change in Aboriginal health. Results: Response rates were 76% and 85% in the 2003 and 2004 cohorts, respectively. Compared with first‐cohort students, second‐cohort students were more likely to agree with items relating to their preparedness and ability to work with and care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (P < 0.05); second‐cohort students also reported greater preparedness to advocate and improve the health of Aboriginal people (P < 0.05); 65% of respondents in the second cohort (versus 34% in the first) agreed they had a social responsibility to work for change in Aboriginal health (P < 0.05). Conclusion: With a relatively small amount of targeted and structured teaching and learning in Aboriginal health, significant shifts in students’ self‐perceived levels of knowledge, skills and attitudes are possible.

This study offers information that can be used to compare the EI scores of medical students with those of other health professionals. No relationship was identified between cognition (measured by the UMAT) and skill (measured by the MSCEIT) in the interpersonal domain and EI. Further studies are required to explore whether UMAT Section 2 is measuring EI, if there are associations between EI and academic performance and if EI can be used to predict the performance of junior doctors.

There are diverse perceptions about the primary purpose of evaluation. In interprofessional education (IPE), there has been a perceived focus on evaluating against the outcome of improved collaborative practice and quality of care. This paper presents an exploration of the nature and purpose of evaluation methods commonly utilized in the IPE literature with its focus on outcomes-based evaluation and particularly the Kirkpatrick framework. It categorises recent evaluations of pre-qualification (pre-certification) IPE interventions. Of the 90 studies included, most evaluated soon after the educational intervention, only five specifically referred to an evaluation framework and the most frequently used tool was the RIPLS. There was a noteworthy reliance on students' self-rated perceptions of their attitudes towards collaborative practice collected through surveys, focus groups and interviews. There appears to be a need to reconsider the type of evaluation required. In conclusion, this paper offers recommendations for evaluation practice that is moving towards realist approaches; describes the longer term effects of interventions on attitudes and behaviour; develops and validates data collection tools including direct observation of practice and more comprehensively engages with all stakeholders to ensure that evaluation activities are not only focused on improving IPE but also on enhancing our understanding of interprofessional practice.