PubMed · 10246861
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
R Boissoneau. 1980. Peer evaluation.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10246861/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: In response to the call for more informatics teaching in the medical curriculum, an elective special study module has been offered to first-year students at Queen's University since 1997. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of a medical informatics course in terms of the use of skills acquired and attitudes held about information technology (IT) in medicine. METHODS: A postal structured questionnaire was sent to all 30 students who took the medical informatics special study module in 1997 and to all 29 students who took the module in 1998, plus an age and sex-matched group of controls in each year. Main outcome measures included attitudes to the role of IT in medicine and declared frequency of use of various software packages. RESULTS: Compared with the control group, those taking the module felt less confident initially with computers. There was a high level of positive attitude to computers in medicine following the course, in both study and control groups. There was a significantly greater use of word-processing (P=0.001) and presentation packages (P=0.0005) amongst third-year students compared with second-year students, but there was no significant difference in this regard between those taking the module and controls. CONCLUSIONS: Students' use of computer technology and IT skills, is more influenced by the demands of the overall curriculum than by undertaking a single module in medical informatics. A special study module may, however, provide valuable support by performing a 'remedial function'. The authors found the module a useful first step in the process of introducing medical informatics to the core curriculum.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVES: To explore the circumstances and factors that explain the association between private health insurance cover and a high rate of caesarean sections in Chile. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of audiotaped in-depth interviews with obstetricians and pregnant women; quantitative analysis of data from face to face semistructured interview survey conducted postnatally (with women who had given birth in the previous 24-72 hours), and of a review of medical notes at a public hospital, a university hospital, and a private clinic. SETTING: Santiago, Chile. PARTICIPANTS: Qualitative arm: 22 obstetricians, 21 pregnant women; quantitative arm: 540 postnatal women. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of caesarean section in different types of institutions; consultants' views on private practice; work patterns in private practice; women's reasons for choosing private care; women's preferences on method of delivery. RESULTS: Private health insurance cover requires the primary maternity care provider to be an obstetrician. In the postnatal survey, women with private obstetricians showed consistently higher rates of caesarean section (range 57-83%) than those cared for by midwives or doctors on duty in public or university hospitals (range 27-28%). Only a minority of women receiving private care reported that they had wanted this method of delivery (range 6-32%). With the diversification in the healthcare market, most obstetricians now have demanding peripatetic work schedules. Private maternity patients are a lucrative source of income. The obstetrician is committed to attend these private births in person, and the "programming" (or scheduling) of births is a common time management strategy. The rate of elective caesarean sections was 30-68% in women with private obstetricians and 12-14% in women not attended by private obstetricians. CONCLUSIONS: Policies on healthcare financing can influence maternity care management and outcomes in unforeseen ways. The prevailing business ethos in health care encourages such pragmatism among those doctors who do not have a moral objection to non-medical caesarean section.