Abstract
A unique case study approach to training medical students in community diagnosis techniques was initiated at the Medical College of Ohio at Toledo. This paper describes the five elements of this teaching method: preliminary specification of target community and data base; group problem-solving requirement; specification of desired output; defined performance objectives; and regularly scheduled time for analysis. Experience with the case study method over two years was evaluated to identify specific strengths and weaknesses. The identified strengths include use of limited educational time to introduce community health problems, development of experience in a collegial team work setting, and specific awareness of the types of data useful to the analysis of community health service problems. Negative evaluations suggested that the method was not conducive to the development of skills in three areas: ability to establish the relative importance of health problems in communities; ability to identify an appropriate health system response to a community health problem from feasible alternatives; and ability to anticipate the community impact of health program modifications or improvements. Potential explanations for these deficiencies include: need for increased didactic support in the classroom for particular skill areas; need to establish a direct field experience in community diagnosis; inappropriateness of the data base used for evaluation of particular skills; and the probability that quantitative analysis, as used in this evaluation, may not be sufficient in and of itself to measure the outcome of a community diagnosis experience.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Wray JD: Undergraduate and graduate education in community medicine. In W Lathem, A Newbery (eds):Community Medicine: Teaching, Research, and Health Care. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970. Pp 155–184.
Nelson AM: The frontiers of community medicine.Public Health Rep 89 49–52, 1975.
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education:Higher Education and the Nation's Health. New York, McGraw Hill, 1970. Pp 45–47.
Wilbur DL: An exercise in community medicine.Postgraduate Med 52 226–228, 1972.
Marine W: Personal communication concerning departments of preventive and community medicine, 1978.
Tapp JW, Deuschle KW: The community medicine clerkship.Milbank Mem Fund Q 47 (Pt.1): 411–447, 1969.
Deuschle KW, Bosch SJ, and Banta HD: The community medicine clerkship: A learner centered program.J Med Educ 47 931–938, 1972.
Donsky J, and Massad R: Community medicine in the training of family physicians.J Fam Pract 8 965–971, 1979.
Werblum MN, Dankers H, and Betton H: A Structured Experimental Curriculum in community Medicine.J Fam Practice 8 771–774, 1979.
Lathem W: Community medicine: Success or failure.N Engl J Med 295 18–23, 1976.
Lowenstein SR: A student's perspective on community medicine and the health crisis.J Med Educ 53 397–401, 1978.
Burke WM, Lukes JJ, and Manseu E: The preceptorship, and integral unit of the curriculum in community and family medicine,J Community Health 3 271–280, 1978.
Stewart MM, Richstone N, and Greene MG: Community medicine clerkships in an applied research setting.J Med Educ 52 145–146, 1977.
Banks SA, Murphy AH, and Reynolds RC: The community health clerkship: Evaluation of a program.J Med Educ 48 560–564, 1973.
Weiler PG, and Clawson DK: Medical schools and public health departments: A new alliance for progress.J Med Educ 54 217–223, 1979.
Burke WM, Eckert NL, and Hays CW. An evaluation of the undergraduate medical curriculum, The Kentucky experiment in community medicine.JAMA 241 2726–2730, 1979.
Additional information
Mr. Bair is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Division of Community Medicine, Medical College of Ohio at Toledo, 43699.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bair, C.W. Teaching community diagnosis to medical students. J Community Health 6, 54–64 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01324057
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01324057