Comparison of clinical preceptorship and small group discussion as educational modalities in modern neurosurgical education: outcomes and perspectives
1
Issued Date
2026-12-01
Resource Type
eISSN
14726920
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-105029727948
Journal Title
BMC Medical Education
Volume
26
Issue
1
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
BMC Medical Education Vol.26 No.1 (2026)
Suggested Citation
Chaisawasthomrong C., Boongird A. Comparison of clinical preceptorship and small group discussion as educational modalities in modern neurosurgical education: outcomes and perspectives. BMC Medical Education Vol.26 No.1 (2026). doi:10.1186/s12909-026-08587-z Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/115127
Title
Comparison of clinical preceptorship and small group discussion as educational modalities in modern neurosurgical education: outcomes and perspectives
Author(s)
Author's Affiliation
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Background: Neurosurgical education is shifting toward methods that foster clinical reasoning and decision-making beyond traditional lectures. Small group discussions (SGD) promote collaborative learning, while clinical preceptorships (CP) offer individualized, hands-on training. However, limited research has compared their effectiveness in undergraduate neurosurgical education. This study evaluates the impact of CP and SGD on knowledge acquisition and clinical preparedness among sixth-year medical students. Methods: In 2024, a quasi-experimental study involving 48 participants was conducted, including 31 sixth-year medical students assigned to either CP (n = 15) or SGD (n = 16), and 17 recently graduated physicians who served as the control group. Both groups completed pre- and post-intervention assessments that covered neurosurgical theory and clinical scenarios, based on the minimum requirements set by the Medical Council. Post-intervention outcomes were analyzed using t-tests. Correlation analysis examined the relationship between time and topic-specific retention. The control group consisted of interns rotating in the department of surgery who trained via the traditional method. Results: Post-intervention, both CP and SGD improved post-test scores. The SGD format required 1.5 h for 5–6 students, whereas the CP format required 1 h per student, with this difference being statistically significant (p < 0.001). CP students, however, significantly outperformed SGD in CT interpretation (85.0% vs. 70.0%, p < 0.01) and neurosurgical management modules (80.4% vs. 40.2%, p < 0.001). CP participants also demonstrated greater knowledge gains and committed fewer conceptual errors, particularly in etiology and management. A significant negative correlation was observed between time since the intervention and knowledge retention (r = − 0.739, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Neurosurgical education benefits from both SGD and CP. SGD enhances conceptual understanding and evidence-based learning, while CP strengthens hands-on application, CT interpretation, and management skills. To reinforce essential neurosurgical knowledge, a refresher session is recommended six months after the initial training.