Which Pathology Education Method Is More Useful in Active Professional Life? A Survey of Clinicians

Abstract

Aim: In this study on physicians who graduated at 2000 and after, contribution of the pathology education they received in medical faculties to their active professional lives, its adequacy and necessity, and their opinions and suggestions were examined.Methods: An open-ended, multiple choice and Likert scale format digital questionnaire consisting of 12 questions was filled by the consenting physicians who graduated in 2000 and later.Results: Total 107 physicians (39 (36.4%) clinical, 38 (35.5%) surgical sciences and 30 (28%) general practitioners) participated in the study. Forty-one physicians (38%) took the pathology course only in the third year. Didactic training was most frequently accompanied by microscopy (n = 94, 87.9%) training. Sixty-six (61.68%) physicians additionally received macroscopy training. Pathology education was very useful and beneficial for their current professional life for 75% physicians and was very sufficient and quite sufficient in 45% physicians. There was a statistically significant relationship between the benefit of pathology in professional life and the adequacy of the education received (p = 0.01). The usability of the knowledge (n = 89, 83.2%), the educational methods (n = 78, 72.9%), and the characteristics of the educator (n = 75, 70.1%) were rated as the most important factors for its benefit in active professional life. Case discussions (n= 79, 72.9%), macroscopy (n = 65, 60.7%), and microscopy laboratory study (n= 62, 57.9%), problem-based learning (PBL) (n = 61, 57.0%), and observation in hospital laboratory ( n= 51, 47.6%) are recommended besides objective structured practical exam (OSPE) (n = 85, 79.4%) andobjective structured clinical exam (OSCE) (n = 76, 71.0%). Conclusions: Pathology education will be helpful in active professional life if the curriculum is usable, integrated with the clinic and delivered with diversified up-to-date learning methods. The benefit of pathology education increases in parallel to its adequacy. Also, surgical and internal sciences physicians benefit more than practitioners. It would be appropriate to set up-to-date standards on the years, duration, content and method of pathology education.