Council on Medical Student Education in Pediatrics


Search This Site

COMSEP 2008 Atlanta Meeting

Other Works of Interest:

Medical Student Reading Habits on a Pediatric Clerkship That Utilizes CLIPP

David Kwee, MD. MScr. David Levine, MD.
Morehouse School of Medicine

Background: Little is known about reading habits of pediatrics students in Clerkships integrating the case-based Computer-Assisted Learning in Pediatrics Program (CLIPP). Previous assessments have shown frequent use of online resources and test preparation textbooks . Medical students likely utilize test preparation textbooks to prepare for standardized testing. Patient-driven learning may be better encouraged by other resources. Computerized cases may be a way to bridge this reading gap.
Study Objectives: 1) to describe the reading habits of third year medical students on a clerkship integrating CLIPP, and 2) to investigate the effect an incentivized online curriculum may have on reading habits.
Methods: Participants were surveyed at the end of their pediatrics clerkship. Students are enrolled in CLIPP upon beginning the clerkship, and incentivized to complete all CLIPP cases through adding 10 percentage points to their final grade. For this study, a survey was adapted from one used at Johns Hopkins Medical Center for an Internal Medicine clerkship. Survey components evaluated: sources utilized, hours used, perceived utility, and purpose of reading.
Results: 29 of 30 possible surveys have been collected over the first half of this academic year. All 29 students completed all CLIPP cases. Twenty-eight students owned test preparation or pocket books. They read on average 14.5 hours/week (median 10.5 hours/week). The most commonly utilized resources were UpToDate® and test preparation books (both utilized by 79%). Students read the most total hours (147.5 reported) from test preparation books (average for reported 8.2 hours/students using). Students reported test preparation booklets most useful, but primarily utilized online sources as their first reference. The average distribution was similar between patient-based (38.2%), general (23.9%), and final exam preparation (23.6%) reading. Approximately 45% reported their biggest problem reading was insufficient time.

Conclusions: The incentivized use of CLIPP does not preclude students from utilizing other reading sources, although it may have a self-perceived effect on student’s time to read. Reading sources primarily consisted of test preparation books and UpToDate®. A possible next step would compare our results to schools that do not use CLIPP.