Integration of Basic and Clinical Sciences: Faculty Perspectives at a U.S. Dental School

Abstract

Although dental education has traditionally been organized into basic sciences education (first and second years) and clinical education (third and fourth years), there has been growing interest in ways to better integrate the two to more effectively educate students and prepare them for practice. Since 2012, The University of Texas School of Dentistry at Houston (UTSD) has made it a priority to improve integration of basic and clinical sciences, with a focus to this point on integrating the basic sciences. The aim of this study was to determine the perspectives of basic and clinical science faculty members regarding basic and clinical sciences integration and the degree of integration currently occurring. In October 2016, all 227 faculty members (15 basic scientists and 212 clinicians) were invited to participate in an online survey. Of the 212 clinicians, 84 completed the clinician educator survey (response rate 40%). All 15 basic scientists completed the basic science educator survey (response rate 100%). The majority of basic and clinical respondents affirmed the value of integration (93.3%, 97.6%, respectively) and reported regular integration in their teaching (80%, 86.9%). There were no significant differences between basic scientists and clinicians on perceived importance (p=0.457) and comfort with integration (p=0.240), but the basic scientists were more likely to integrate (p=0.039) and collaborate (p=0.021) than the clinicians. There were no significant differences between generalist and specialist clinicians on importance (p=0.474) and degree (p=0.972) of integration in teaching and intent to collaborate (p=0.864), but the specialists reported feeling more comfortable presenting basic science information (p=0.033). Protected faculty time for collaborative efforts and a repository of integrated basic science and clinical examples for use in teaching and faculty development were recommended to improve integration. Although questions might be raised about the respondents' definition of "integration," this study provides a baseline assessment of perceptions at a dental school that is placing a priority on integration.

Benefits of Near-Peer Tutoring in Small Group Discussions: A Pilot Study

“…Clinical experts due to busy hospital routine cannot justify their roles as teachers in preclinical integrated modules. 13 Scant literature is available on the use of Near-Peer tutors in SGDs, along with faculty, to deliver correlational concepts, in an integrated curriculum in preclinical years. Our study aims to generate qualitative data on the perceptions of Near-Peer tutors about NPAL and, their gains after tutoring small groups to deliver complex integrated concepts.…”

The Teaching of Personalized Dentistry in North American Dental Schools: Changes from 2014 to 2017

“…24 A recent study at the University of Texas School of Dentistry at Houston found that both clinical and basic science faculty members valued the importance of integration of basic sciences into the clinical curriculum, but the basic scientists were more likely to integrate and collaborate than the clinicians. 25 In our study, most of the respondents recognized PM/PD as an important part of dental curricula and reported feeling that PM/PD should be taught in both the 2014 (77%) and 2017 (90%) surveys, with a slight upward trend indicating the need to educate students to be prepared for future advances after graduation. However, implementation of the concepts of PM/PD into both didactic and clinical curricula were lacking.…”

Faculty perception on clinical shadowing: A concurrent mixed methods study

“…Simulation was demonstrated in a study where senior students authored case‐based small group sessions for first‐year students in biochemistry 12 . Another example of integration includes mandatory clinical rounds that teach basic science concepts along with the concepts of clinical courses 2 …”

“…However, faculty respondents of the present study shared mixed responses when asked if clinical shadowing is challenging. Other studies report challenges when it comes to certain topics such as anatomy and neurobiology 2 …”

“…Despite the advancements in global teaching methods, traditional “discipline‐based curriculum” persists in many dental schools to this day 1 . The most common predoctoral curricula in dental education emphasize basic science education in the early years (1st and 2nd years) and clinical science education in the latter years (3rd and 4th years) 2 . The main limitation of these curricula is the disconnect between the basic sciences and clinical practice.…”