Rationing medical education.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the role of rationing in medical education. Medical education is expensive and there is a limit to that which governments, funders or individuals can spend on it. Rationing involves the allocation of resources that are limited. This paper discussed the pros and cons of the application of rationing to medical education and the different forms of rationing that could be applied. Even though some stakeholders in medical education might be taken aback at the prospect of rationing, the truth is that rationing has always occurred in one form or another in medical education and in healthcare more broadly. Different types of rationing exist in healthcare professional education. For example rationing may be implicit or explicit or may be based on macro-allocation or micro-allocation decisions. Funding can be distributed equally among learners, or according to the needs of individual learners, or to ensure that overall usefulness is maximised. One final option is to allow the market to operate freely and to decide in that way. These principles of rationing can apply to individual learners or to institutions or departments or learning modes. Rationing is occurring in medical education, even though it might be implicit. It is worth giving consideration to methods of rationing and to make thinking about rationing more explicit.

Access, attitudes and training in information technologies and evidence-based medicine among medical students at University of Zimbabwe College of Health Sciences.

Background: The Medical Education Partnership Initiative, has helped to mitigate the digital divide in Africa. The aim of the study was to assess the level of access, attitude, and training concerning meaningful use of electronic resources and EBM among medical students at an African medical school. Methods: The study involved medical students at the University of Zimbabwe College of Health Sciences, Harare. The needs assessment tool consisted of a 21-question, paper-based, voluntary and anonymous survey. Results: A total of 61/67 (91%), responded to the survey. 60% of the medical students were ‘third-year medical students’. Among medical students, 85% of responders had access to digital medical resources, but 54% still preferred printed medical textbooks. Although 25% of responders had received training in EBM, but only 7% found it adequate. 98% of the participants did not receive formal training in journal club presentation or analytical reading of medical literature, but 77 % of them showed interest in learning these skills. Conclusion: Lack of training in EBM, journal club presentation and analytical reading skills have limited the impact of upgraded technology in enhancing the level of knowledge. This impact can be boosted by developing a curriculum with skills necessary in using EBM.