Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Tujuan Kemampuan penalaran kliiik odotoh salah salu kompetensi utama yang harus dimiliki oleh lulusan dokter sehingga perlu dilatih sejak mahasiswa. Akan tetapi, pembuktian kuantitatif tentangfaktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi kemampuan penalaran klinik mahasiswa masih sangat sedikit. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menenlukan pengaruhpengetahuan dan faktor lainnya terhadap kemampuan penalaran klinik mahasiswa sebagai bahan acuan dalam menentukan metode pembelajaran penalaran klinik.Melode Penetritian potong linlang dilakukan terhadap mahasiswa Fakuhas Kedokteran Universitas Sriwijaya program KBK semester IV Data yang diambil adalah tentang kemampuan penalaran klinik dengan faktor risikonya pada kasus sistem urogenital karena saat data diambil pada April 2008, mahasiswa baru menyelesaikan pembelajaran blokurogenilal. Kemampuan penalaran klinik dinilai dengan /es script concordance danfaktor risiko dinilai berdasarkanhasil evaluasiformatif, sumatif blok dan karakterisitk mahasiswa. Analisis data dilakukan dengan metode regresi Cox. Hasil Hasil penelitian terhadap 132 mahasiswa menunjukkan persentase kemampuan penalaran klinik yang rendah sebesar 38,694. Mahasiswa yang mempunyai pengetahuan yang rendah dibandingkan dengan yang tinggi mempunyai 63% lebih tinggi risiko mengalami penalaran klinik yang rendah (kR suaian : 1,63; 9594 interval kepercoyaan (C[): I,l0-2,42). Dibanding dengan kelompok mahasiswa yang lerampil berpikir kritis, mahasiswa yang tidak terampil berpikir ltritis lebih berisiko dua kali lebih mempunyai penalaran klinikyang rendah (M suaian: 2,30; 95% interval kepercayaan (CD: 1,55 - 3,41).Kesimpulan Dari penelitian ini dapat disimpulkan bahwa mahasiswa yang tidak terampil berpikir kritis atau memiliki pengetahuan yang rendah memiliki kemampuan penalaran klinik yang rendah.

---

AbstractAim Clinical reasoning is one of the essential competencies for medical practitioners, so that it must be exercised by medical students. Studies on quantitative evidence of factors influencing clinical reasoning abilicy of students are limited. The aim of this study was to determine the influence of knowledge and other factors on the clinical reasoning abiliry ofthe students, which can serve as reference to establish methods for learning ctinical reasoning. Methods This is a cross-sectional study on fourth semester students enrolled in the Competency-based Curriculumof the Medical Faculty, University of Sriwijaya. Data on clinical reasoning abilily and risk factors during urogenital blockwere collected inApril 2008, when the students have just completed the btock. Clinical reasoning abiliry was tested using the Script Concordance test and the risk factors were evaluated based on formative tests, block summativeassessments, and student characteristics. Data were analyzed by Cox regression.Results The prevalence of low clinical reasoning ability of the 132 students was 38.6%. The group with low basic knowledge was found to have 63% risk ol low clinical reasoning abiliry when compared to those with high basic knowledge (adjusted RR = 1.63; 95% conidence intewal (Ct): 1.10 -2.42). When compared to students with high critical thinking skitls, those with lory critical thinking skills had 2.3 time to be low clinical reasoning abitity (adjusted RR : 2.30; 9s% CI: 1.55 - 3.41).Conclusion Students with low critical thinking skills or with inadequate knowledge had a higher risk of low clinical reasoning ability."

"[Bioethics developed as an academic and clinical discipline during the later part of the 20th century due to a variety of factors. Crucial to this development was the increased secularization of American culture as well as the dissolution of medicine as a quasi-guild with its own professional ethics. In the context of this moral vacuum, bioethics came into existence. Its raison d’être was opposition to the alleged paternalism of the medical community and traditional moral frameworks, yet at the same time it set itself up as a source of moral authority with respect to biomedical decision making. Bioethics serves as biopolitics in so far as it attempts to make determinations about how individuals ought to make medical decisions and then attempts to codify that in law. Progressivism and secularism are ultimately the ideology of bioethics.;Bioethics developed as an academic and clinical discipline during the later part of the 20th century due to a variety of factors. Crucial to this development was the increased secularization of American culture as well as the dissolution of medicine as a quasi-guild with its own professional ethics. In the context of this moral vacuum, bioethics came into existence. Its raison d’être was opposition to the alleged paternalism of the medical community and traditional moral frameworks, yet at the same time it set itself up as a source of moral authority with respect to biomedical decision making. Bioethics serves as biopolitics in so far as it attempts to make determinations about how individuals ought to make medical decisions and then attempts to codify that in law. Progressivism and secularism are ultimately the ideology of bioethics., Bioethics developed as an academic and clinical discipline during the later part of the 20th century due to a variety of factors. Crucial to this development was the increased secularization of American culture as well as the dissolution of medicine as a quasi-guild with its own professional ethics. In the context of this moral vacuum, bioethics came into existence. Its raison d’être was opposition to the alleged paternalism of the medical community and traditional moral frameworks, yet at the same time it set itself up as a source of moral authority with respect to biomedical decision making. Bioethics serves as biopolitics in so far as it attempts to make determinations about how individuals ought to make medical decisions and then attempts to codify that in law. Progressivism and secularism are ultimately the ideology of bioethics.]"