Pathology as a Basic Medical Subject: Its Relevance and Application During Clinical Practice in Jordanian MD Programs, Interns’ and Residents’ Perspectives

Figures & data

Table 1 General Characteristics of the Participants, N=103

	Frequency (%)		Frequency (%)
Gender		Specialty
Male	42 (40.8%)	Intern	87 (84.5%)
Female	61 (59.2%)	Internal medicine	6 (5.8%)
Age		General surgery	3 (2.9%)
20–25	92 (89.3%)	ENT	1 (1.0%)
26–30	10 (9.7%)	Obstetrics and Gynecology	1 (1.0%)
36–40	1 (1.0%)	Family medicine	1 (1.0%)
Position		Pediatrics	4 (3.9%)
Intern	89 (86.4%)
Resident	14 (13.6%)

Table 2 Perceptions of Participants Towards the Pathology Courses, N=103

Attribute	Strongly Agree N (%)	Agree N (%)	Neutral N (%)	Disagree N (%)	Strongly Disagree N (%)
Pathology is important in your clinical work	16 (15.5%)	58 (56.3%)	16 (15.5%)	2 (1.9%)	11 (10.7%)
Pathology was an interesting subject to learn	9 (8.7%)	61 (59.2%)	20 (19.4%)	6 (5.85)	7 (6.8%)
My aim was just to pass the exams of the Pathology course^∞	3 (2.9%)	44 (42.7%)	26 (25.2%)	24 (23.3%)	6 (5.8%)
The Pathology course was too vast^∞	3 (2.9%)	53 (51.5%)	39 (37.9%)	7 (6.8%)	1 (1.0%)
The frame for the course of Pathology was too short^∞	8 (7.8%)	62 (60.2%)	20 (19.4%)	11 (10.7%)	2 (1.9%)
The content of the Pathology course lacks clinical relevance^∞	12 (11.7%)	22 (21.4%)	41 (39.8%)	24 (23.3%)	4 (3.9%)
Microscopic and gross morphology of disease is difficult to identify and recall^∞	23 (22.3%)	65 (63.1%)	11 (10.7%)	3 (2.9%)	1 (1.0%)
Applying Pathology to clinical practice is a skill that should be reinforced early in medical education	20 (19.4%)	67 (65.0%)	12 (11.7%)	2 (1.9%)	2 (1.9%)

Notes: ^∞Reverse scoring (Strongly agree=1, agree=2, neutral=3, disagree=4, strongly disagree=5).

Table 3 Participants´ Opinions Regarding the Information and Methods of Teaching Provided in the Pathology Courses, N=103

Attribute	Strongly Agree N (%)	Agree N (%)	Neutral N (%)	Disagree N (%)	Strongly Disagree N (%)
The Pathology course provided the relevant foundation for clinical skills/procedures	2 (1.9%)	58 (56.3%)	26 (25.2%)	13 (12.6%)	4 (3.9%)
During your clinical practice, have you ever referred to the Pathology subject that you studied during your undergraduate program	8 (7.8%)	57 (55.3%)	16 (15.5%)	14 (13.6%)	8 (7.8%)
Pathology lab sessions were interesting and now useful in clinical practice.	6 (5.8%)	46 (44.7%)	25 (24.3%)	20 (19.4%)	6 (5.8%)
Gained knowledge of microscopic and gross morphology of diseases is now useful in clinical practice	6 (5.8%)	57 (55.3%)	29 (28.2%)	8 (7.8%)	3 (2.9%)
Courses integrating Pathology and clinical practice (case-based learning) is better than the conventional lecture-based method of teaching^Ω	26 (25.2%)	60 (58.3%)	14 (13.6%)	2 (1.9%)	1 (1.0%)
The Pathology course helped me develop Skills for teamwork	5 (4.9%)	46 (44.7%)	34 (33.0%)	12 (11.7%)	6 (5.8%)
The information and knowledge of Pathology What I have gained to date is fundamental to my future role as a physician	5 (4.9%)	61 (59.2%)	32 (31.1%)	4 (3.9%)	1 (1.0%)
A Physician can effectively treat most patients without knowing the details of the biological and pathological processes involved^∞	2 (1.9%)	21 (20.4%)	17 (16.5%)	55 (53.4%)	8 (7.8%)

Notes: ^ΩNot included in the total information score; ^∞Reverse scoring (Strongly agree=1, agree=2, neutral=3, disagree=4, strongly disagree=5).

Table 4 Association Between Perception Score/ Information and Methods Score and Different Variables, N=103

	Perception Score		Information and Methods Score
	Mean ± SD	P	Mean ± SD	P
Gender		0.556^€		0.145^€
Male	24.12 ± 2.54		24.74 ± 3.69
Female	23.75 ± 3.40		23.48 ± 4.65
Age		0.791^¥		0.460^¥
20–25	23.89 ± 3.17		24.17 ± 4.28
26–30	23.80 ± 2.15		22.50 ± 4.69
36–40	26.00		22.00
Position		0.755^€		0.513^€
Intern	23.87 ± 3.18		24.10 ± 4.39
Resident	24.14 ± 2.38		23.29 ± 3.85

Notes: ^€Independent samples t-test; ^¥One-way ANOVA.

Figure 1 Impact of pathology courses on clinical practice.