The Pedagogical Value of a Student-run Community-based Experiential Learning Project: The Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine Public Health Screening

Abstract

Introduction: We assessed the pedagogical value of a student-led community-based experiential learning project called the Public Health Screening (PHS) run by medical and nursing students of the National University of Singapore’s Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine (NUS YLLSoM). Materials and Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study using a self-administered anonymised questionnaire on medical and nursing students who participated in PHS using the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) Survey Instrument. Participants also gave an overall score for their learning experience at the PHS. Results: The participation rate was 93.1% (576/619) for medical students and 100% (37/37) for nursing students. All participants gave the PHS learning experience a high rating (median = 8 out of maximum of 10, inter-quartile range, 7 to 9). A majority of participants felt that PHS had helped them to improve across all domains surveyed. For medical students, those in preclinical years and females were independently more likely to feel that PHS had helped them to improve in communication skills, teamwork, ability to identify social issues, taking action, and gaining and applying their knowledge than those in clinical years and males. Improved ability to interact with patients (β=1.64, 95%CI, 1.01-2.27), appreciation of challenges to healthcare faced by Singaporeans from lower income groups (β=0.93, 95%CI, 0.49-1.37), thinking of others (β=0.70, 95%CI, 0.04-1.37) and tolerance of different people (β =0.63, 95%CI, 0.17-1.10) were strongly associated with the overall rating score. Conclusion: PHS was a positive learning experience in a wide range of domains for all students involved. This suggests that student-organised community-based experiential learning projects have potential educational value for both medical and nursing students. Keywords: Medical education, Student-led, Voluntarism and skills

Learning Outcomes from Participation in Student-Run Health Clinics: A Systematic Review

“…The third most frequently reported learning outcome associated with SRC participation revolved around empathy/compassion for underserved individuals (n = 34), 15 , 18 , 25 , 27–29 , 42 , 53 , 55 , 57 , 59 , 62 , 75 , 83–87 in particular improving attitudes towards, 15 , 18 , 25 , 28 , 34 , 88 as well as awareness and understanding and of the needs and social reality of, the underserved. 19 , 22 , 29 , 31 , 35 , 36 , 55 , 57 , 59 , 60 , 62 , 66 , 68 , 70 , 75 , 76 , 82 , 84 , 86 , 89–92 Though one study reported no change in overall attitudes towards homeless patients. 93 Finally, improved skills working with indigenous populations were noted as a learning outcome in one study.…”

“… ✓ Simmons et al (2019) 73 Survey ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Simon et al (2019) 82 Survey ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ X Stephens et al (2015) 36 Survey ✓ ✓ ✓ ? ✓ X ✓ Vaikunth et al (2014) 98 Academic record review ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Wee et al (2010) 60 Survey ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ...…”

“…Participation provided the opportunity to practice, experience, and gain confidence applying clinical skills. 11 , 22–59 Students improve interpersonal skills, including interpersonal communication skills, 17 , 27–29 , 48 , 50 , 60–62 patient interaction relationship skills, 19 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 63 , 64 team work, 60 and experience and comfort managing language barriers (eg, interacting with patients for whom English is not their first language). 65–67 Professionalism, including professional skills and competency, 29 , 31 , 68–70 and autonomy/responsibility (including professional responsibility) are developed too.…”

“…Leadership was another commonly reported outcome (n = 15). In particular, SRC participation was consistently found to benefit student’s capacity to lead, including gaining leadership experience and developing leadership skills, 30 , 33 , 41 , 58 , 60 , 62 , 75 , 95 , 96 as well as experience and confidence teaching other students (ie, peer teaching). 20 , 36 , 56 , 59 , 97 …”