BMC medical education · 2024
When can we identify the students at risk of failure in the national medical licensure examination in Japan using the predictive pass rate?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shioiri Toshiki, Nakashima Michiyo, Tsunekawa Koji
Аннотация
CONTEXT: Failure of students to pass the National Medical Licensure Examination (NMLE) is a major problem for universities and the health system in Japan. To assist students at risk for NMLE failure as early as possible after admission, this study investigated the time points (from the time of admission to graduation) at which predictive pass rate (PPR) can be used to identify students at risk of failing the NMLE.
METHODS: Seven consecutive cohorts of medical students between 2012 and 2018 (n = 637) at the Gifu University Graduate School of Medicine were investigated. Using 7 variables before admission to medical school and 10 variables after admission, a prediction model to obtain the PPR for the NMLE was developed using logistic regression analysis at five time points, i.e., at admission and the end of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 6th grades. All students were divided into high (PPR < 95%) and low (PPR ≥ 95%) risk groups for failing the NMLE at the five time points, respectively, and the movement between the groups during 6 years in school was simulated.
RESULTS: Medical students who passed the NMLE had statistically significant factors at each of the 5 time points, and the number of significant variables increased as their grade in school advanced. In addition, two factors extracted at admission were also selected as significant variables at all other time points. Especially, age at entry had a consistent and significant effect during medical school.
CONCLUSIONS: Risk analysis based on multiple variables, such as PPR, can inform more effective intervention compared to a single variable, such as performance in the mock exam. A longer prospective study is required to confirm the validity of PPR.
METHODS: Seven consecutive cohorts of medical students between 2012 and 2018 (n = 637) at the Gifu University Graduate School of Medicine were investigated. Using 7 variables before admission to medical school and 10 variables after admission, a prediction model to obtain the PPR for the NMLE was developed using logistic regression analysis at five time points, i.e., at admission and the end of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 6th grades. All students were divided into high (PPR < 95%) and low (PPR ≥ 95%) risk groups for failing the NMLE at the five time points, respectively, and the movement between the groups during 6 years in school was simulated.
RESULTS: Medical students who passed the NMLE had statistically significant factors at each of the 5 time points, and the number of significant variables increased as their grade in school advanced. In addition, two factors extracted at admission were also selected as significant variables at all other time points. Especially, age at entry had a consistent and significant effect during medical school.
CONCLUSIONS: Risk analysis based on multiple variables, such as PPR, can inform more effective intervention compared to a single variable, such as performance in the mock exam. A longer prospective study is required to confirm the validity of PPR.