BRIDGING THE GAP: ADDRESSING FACULTY SHORTAGES AND CAREER INTEREST IN PHASE I SUBJECTS UNDER THE COMPETENCY-BASED MEDICAL EDUCATION CURRICULUM

LOHITHA POLISETTY; ALETI LAKSHMI MANOHARI; KIRANMAYI PENTAKOTA; SMRITI SINHA

doi:10.22159/ajpcr.2025v18i4.53312

Authors

LOHITHA POLISETTY Department of Biochemistry, Mamata Academy of Medical Sciences, Bachupally, Hyderabad, Telangana, India https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0620-1543
ALETI LAKSHMI MANOHARI Department of Biochemistry, Maharaja Institute of Medical Sciences, Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh, India
KIRANMAYI PENTAKOTA Department of Physiology, GITAM Institute of Medical Sciences, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1490-4233
SMRITI SINHA Department of Physiology, Mamata Academy of Medical Sciences, Bachupally, Hyderabad, Telangana, India https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8525-9238

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22159/ajpcr.2025v18i4.53312

Keywords:

Competency-based medical education, Phase I subjects, Perceptions, Specialization choice, Medical students

Abstract

Objectives: Recently introduced competency-based medical education (CBME) curriculum necessitates a heavy presence of ably trained medical educators. Contrarily, Phase I subjects are facing a severe shortage of faculty, piloting a double setback to the system in the form of stress and burnout among faculty along with curtailed implementation of the much-needed CBME curriculum.

Methods: A cross-sectional, observational electronically distributed questionnaire-based study was conducted to analyze the perceptions of undergraduate students as well as doctors toward the importance of Phase I subjects in patient care as well as opting Phase I subjects as their career choice.

Results: A total of 3530 participants were included in the study, which concluded that despite 95% of participants acknowledging the importance of Phase I subjects in medical education and a whopping 90% agreeing to the significance of knowledge of these subjects in future patient care, only a meager 3.1% wanted to pursue the same as a career choice. The main constraints behind not choosing these subjects were a lack of direct patient care and relatively miniscule financial gains. It was also highlighted that only a handful of the participants were aware of future avenues like fellowship in embryology (Anatomy), super-specialty option (Biochemistry), and fellowship in chronomedicine (Physiology) apart from teaching roles post-specialization.

Conclusion: It was suggested that compulsory research hours, integrated teaching, and sensitizing students toward various avenues in Phase I disciplines could cultivate positive attitudes and foster interest in these subjects commanding a complete unified implementation of the much-needed CBME curriculum.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

National Medical Commission. UG Curriculum; 2023. Available from: https://www.nmc.org.in/information-desk/for-colleges/ug-curriculum

Buja LM. Medical education today: All that glitters is not gold. BMC Med Educ. 2019 Apr 16;19(1):110.

Gaur U, Majumder MA, Sa B, Sarkar S, Williams A, Singh K. Challenges and opportunities of preclinical medical education: COVID-19 crisis and beyond. SN Compr Clin Med. 2020;2(12):1992-7.

Deepak S, Dakshayani KR, Manjunath SN. The relevance of the preclinical curriculum during clinical practice: Interns’ perspective in a government medical college. Int J Anat Res. 2017;5(1):3379-83.

Singh A, Alberti H. Why UK medical students change career preferences: An interview study. Perspect Med Educ. 2021 Jan;10(1):41-9.

Bland CJ, Meurer LN, Maldonado G. Determinants of primary care specialty choice: A non-statistical meta-analysis of the literature. Acad Med. 1995;70(7):620-41.

Yathish TR, Sudarshan CR, Sudhanva S. Perceptions of medical students and physicians about the role and scope of physiology. Natl J Physiol Pharm Pharmacol. 2020 May 31;10(6):464-7.

Kumar A, Mitra K, Nagarajan S, Poudel B. Factors influencing medical students’ choice of future specialization in medical sciences: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey from medical schools in China, Malaysia, and regions of South Asian association for regional cooperation. North Am J Med Sci. 2014 Mar;6(3):119-25.

Yamazaki Y, Uka T, Shimizu H, Miyahira A, Sakai T, Marui E. Japanese medical students’ interest in basic sciences: A questionnaire survey of a medical school in Japan. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2013;229(2):129-36.

Steffes CP, Dulchavsky SA. Basic science curriculum during residency: Justification based on in-training examination scores. Adv Physiol. 1994 Dec;267(6):S109-12.

Javed K, Anwar K, Aamir F. Perception and interest of medical students regarding basic medical science subjects. Cell. 2016 Jul 1;322:8400970.

Rose JC. Who will teach the basic medical sciences? A study of British physiology departments reveals critical staffing problems and concern for the future. Science. 1974 Sep 20;185(4156):1022-7.

Olson DP, Oatts JT, Fields BG, Huot SJ. The residency application abyss: Insights and advice. Yale J Biol Med. 2011 Sep;84(3):195-202.

Patel MS, Katz JT, Volpp KG. Match rates into higher-income, controllable lifestyle specialties for students from highly ranked, research-based medical schools compared with other applicants. J Grad Med Educ. 2010 Sep 1;2(3):360-5.

Borgaonkar K, Patil R. Comparison of case-based learning and traditional teaching to evaluate learning and academic outcome of first-year MBBS students in biochemistry curriculum. Asian J Pharm Clin Res. 2024;17(6):62-5.

Jain V. Book review self-directed learning for medical students. Asian J Pharm Clin Res 2024 Jul 7;17(7):1-2.

National Testing Agency. NEET SS Prospectus; 2023. Available from: https://natboard.edu.in/ viewupload?xyz=aznhwml5vkvlec9zdlqzv3lnawm3zz09