Table 1.

Context evaluation: methods and results

Method	Details of the method	Main results
1. Students, faculty and administrator focus groups	To explore the challenges of the traditional programme, 21 focus group sessions (12 with students, 7 with faculty and 2 with administrators) were conducted during May to July 2006. Each session were lasted 120–150 min. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis method	Four categories of challenges have been identified: 1. Challenges of the structure of the programme 2. Challenges of the content of the curriculum 3. Limitations of the resources 4. Challenges of the programme implementation
2. Graduation survey	To evaluate the perceptions of our graduates regarding the quality of the traditional programme, a 262-item questionnaire was developed based on the graduation survey by the Association of American Medical Colleges. A total of 183 questionnaires were completed by medical students upon their graduation from the medical school in 2007	- Satisfied with the medical training they received (28.4 %) - Basic science courses lacked clinical relevance (77 %) - Acquired adequate knowledge and skills to start residency training (33.3 %) - Have not been taught sufficient clinical skills in preparations for their future practice (70 %)
3. DREEM questionnaire	To evaluate the educational environments from perspectives of the students, a total of 541 students (103 basic sciences, 103 preclinical and 335 clinical students) completed the standard DREEM questionnaire in 2008	Overall DREEM questionnaire score was 91.46/200 (students’ perception of teaching [23.75/48], students’ perception of teachers [19.42/44], students’ academic self-perceptions [13.21/32], students’ perceptions of atmosphere [23.35/48], students’ social self-perceptions [13.99/28])
4. A self-study of programme in comparison with national undergraduate medical education standards	A self-study of the traditional programme was conducted on the basis of the national standards (including 9 domains and 57 standards) in 2007. 234 questionnaires were completed by students, faculty and administrators. 82 department deans, course directors and faculty used the results to evaluate the programme quality in comparison with each national standard on a scale from 0 to 100	Final results showed that 22 (40 %) standards were rated as ‘relatively match’ (50–75) and ‘completely match’ (75–100) by more than 50 % of the members of the workshops. 32 (55 %) standards were rated as ‘does not match’ (0–25) and ‘slightly match’ (25–50) by more than 50 % of the members of the workshops
5. Results of OSCE	86 students participated in an OSCE exam at the end of the clerkship period. The exam was conducted in the morning (2 different tracts) and in the evening (2 similar tracts). Each tract consisted of seven stations	There was a significant difference (p < 0.001) between history taking (accounted for the highest points) and procedure (accounted for the lowest points) stations