Strides in Development of Medical Education

Document Type : Original Article


1 Infectious Diseases Research Center, Birjand University of Medical Sciences, Birjand, Iran

2 Cellular and Molecular Research Center, Birjand University of Medical Sciences, Birjand, Iran

3 Education Development Center (EDC), Birjand University of Medical Sciences, Birjand, Iran

4 Department of Community Medicine, Birjand University of Medical Sciences, Birjand, Iran

5 Students' Scientific Research Center, Birjand University of Medical Sciences, Birjand, Iran


Background: Currently medical education in Iran consists of basic sciences, physiopathology and clinical stages. Medical students learn them separately and often are confused that how basic sciences materials would be helpful for the patient’s diagnosis and treatment. Integration of various related subjects during medical education is one the proposed strategy to overcome this problem. Objectives: The present study was conducted to assess the effect of an integrated teaching approach on medical students’ attitudes and knowledge about infection diseases.
Methods: This quasi-experimental study was conducted in the infectious disease ward of Valia-e-asr Hospital affiliated to Birjand University of Medical of Sciences, Birjand, Iran. A total of 60 medical students (stagers) were randomly selected and assigned to the control and intervention groups. The two groups were matched based on their grade point average (GPA), age, and gender. An integrated teaching approach was adopted in the intervention group by four epidemiology, microbiology, infectious diseases, and pharmacology professors. The students’ knowledge was assessed by a written exam, and their attitude was evaluated using a questionnaire. Data was analyzed by SPSS version 16 and using paired and independent samples t-test.
Results: The analyses showed that 52% of the participants were male. The mean scores in the cognitive and emotional domains (the students’ points of view) were not correlated with students’ gender, and they were not significantly different before (p= 0.12) and after (p= 0.25) the intervention. The students’ final learning scores were significantly higher in the intervention group than that of the control group (16.16±1.17 vs 14.12±1.73; p=0.001).
Conclusion: The integration of basic and clinical subjects helps students to better understand the physiopathology of diseases and enhances their satisfaction.


  1. Bandiera G, Boucher A, Neville A, Kuper A, Hodges B. Integration and timing of basic and clinical sciences education. Med Teach. 2013 May;35(5):381-7. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2013.769674. [PMID: 23444888].
  2. Shackebaei D, Karami Matin B, Amolaee K, Rezaie M, Abdolmaleki P, Reshadat S, et al. Achieving the goals of integration of medical education and health service delivery systems from the viewpoint of the faculty members of Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences. Scientific Journal of Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences. 2011;16(1):81-91. [In Persian]
  3. Karimi R, Arendt CS, Cawley P, Buhler AV, Elbarbry F, Roberts SC. Learning bridge: curricular integration of didactic and experiential education. Am J Pharm Educ. 2010 Apr 12;74(3):48. doi: 10.5688/aj740348. [PMID: 20498741]. [PMCID: PMC2865414].
  4. Schapiro R, Stickford-Becker AE, Foertsch JA, Remington PL, Seibert CS. Integrative cases for preclinical medical students: connecting clinical, basic science, and public health approaches. Am J Prev Med. 2011 Oct;41(4 Suppl 3):S187-92. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.06.004. [PMID: 21961663].
  5. Al-Eraky MM. Twelve Tips for teaching medical professionalism at all levels of medical education. Med Teach. 2015;37(11):1018-25. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2015.1020288. [PMID: 25776227].
  6. Hoffman K, Hosokawa M, Blake Jr R, Headrick L, Johnson G. Problem-based learning outcomes: ten years of experience at the University of Missouri—Columbia School of Medicine. Acad Med. 2006 Jul;81(7):617-25. doi: 10.1097/01.ACM.0000232411.97399.c6. [PMID: 16799282]
  7. Haidet P, Stein HF. The role of the student-teacher relationship in the formation of physicians. J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Jan;21 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S16-20. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00304.x. [PMID: 16405704]. [PMCID: PMC1484835].
  8. Mehana M, Kilani H. Enhancing physical education in Omani basic education curriculum: Rationale and implications. Int J Cross-Discip Sub Educ (IJCDSE). 2010;1(2):99-104. doi:10.20533/ijcdse.2042.6364.2010.0014
  9. Elangovan S, Venugopalan SR, Srinivasan S, Karimbux NY, Weistroffer P, Allareddy V. Integration of basic-clinical sciences, PBL, CBL, and IPE in US dental schools’ curricula and a proposed integrated curriculum model for the future. J Dent Educ. 2016 Mar;80(3):281-90. doi:10.1002/j.0022-0337.2016.80.3.tb06083.x. [PMID: 26933103].
  10. Rosse C. Early integration of basic and clinical sciences in medical education with particular reference to gross anatomy. Am J Anat. 1973 Mar;136(3):389-94. doi: 10.1002/aja.1001360311. [PMID: 4704408].
  11. Wills JW. The Development of Diagnostic Competence: Comparison of a Problem-Based, and Integrated, and a Conventional Medical Curriculum. Schmidt HC, Machiels-Bongaerts M, Hermans H, ten Cate TJ, Venekamp R, Boshuizen HPA. Acad Med. 1996; 7: 658-664. Journal of Physical Therapy Education. 1996;10(2):96. doi: 10.1097/00001416-199607000-00012.
  12. Marreez YM, Wells M, Eisen A, Rosenberg L, Park D, Schaller F, et al. Towards integrating basic and clinical sciences: Our experience at touro university nevada. Medical Science Educator. 2013;23(4):595-606. doi:10.1007/BF03341687.
  13. Vyas R, Jacob M, Faith M, Isaac B, Rabi S, Sathishkumar S, et al. An effective integrated learning programme in the first year of the medical course. Natl Med J India. Jan-Feb 2008;21(1):21-6. [PMID: 18472699].
  14. Brauer DG, Ferguson KJ. The integrated curriculum in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 96. Med Teach. 2015 Apr;37(4):312-22. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.970998. [PMID: 25319403].
  15. Dandannavar VS. Effect of integrated teaching versus conventional lecturing on MBBS phase I students. Recent Research in Science and Technology. 2010;2(11).
  16. Harden RM, Sowden S, Dunn WR. Educational strategies in curriculum development: the SPICES model. Med Educ. 1984 Jul;18(4):284-97. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1984.tb01024.x. [PMID: 6738402].
  17. Buabeng-Andoh C. Factors influencing teachersâ adoption and integration of information and communication technology into teaching: A review of the literature. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT. 2012;8(1).
  18. Uma P, Rajani K, Usha P. Student's perception about integrated teaching in an undergraduate medical curriculum. Indian J Basic Appl Med Res. 2011;4(2):47-52.
  19. Brumpton K, Kitchener S, Sweet L. Learning styles in vertically integrated teaching. Clin Teach. 2013 Oct;10(5):282-6. doi: 10.1111/tct.12024. [PMID: 24015731].
  20. Zolfaghari M, Negarandeh R, Eybpoosh S. Developing a blended learning program for nursing and midwifery students in Iran: process and preliminary outcomes. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2013 Jan;18(1):20-6. [PMID: 23983723]. [PMCID: PMC3748550].
  21. Vink SC, Van Tartwijk J, Bolk J, Verloop N. Integration of clinical and basic sciences in concept maps: a mixed method study on teacher learning. BMC Med Educ. 2015 Feb 18;15:20. doi: 10.1186/s12909-015-0299-0. [PMID: 25884319]. [PMCID: PMC4365534].