Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 May 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Surg Educ. 2022 Jan 17;79(3):676–685. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.12.013

Table 5:

Perceived Broader Implications on Medical Education

Effect n (%)
Learning to perform a pelvic EUA was important to my overall medical education

Strongly Disagree 12 (7)
Disagree 21 (12)
Neutral 31 (18)
Agree 62 (35)
Strongly Agree 49 (28)

Learning to perform any EUA was beneficial to my medical education

Strongly Disagree 7 (4)
Disagree 7 (4)
Neutral 33 (17)
Agree 66 (34)
Strongly Agree 77 (40)

Learning to perform a pelvic EUA will likely benefit me in my future career field

Strongly Disagree 26 (14)
Disagree 26 (14)
Neutral 46 (24)
Agree 50 (27)
Strongly Agree 41 (21)

The hands-on experience of a pelvic EUA was more helpful than pelvic exams performed in clinic for learning pelvic anatomy

Strongly Disagree 23 (12)
Disagree 35 (18)
Neutral 53 (28)
Agree 40 (21)
Strongly Agree 38 (20)

The hands-on experience of a pelvic EUA was more helpful than a textbook or diagram for learning pelvic anatomy

Strongly Disagree 2 (1)
Disagree 9 (5)
Neutral 25 (13)
Agree 48 (25)
Strongly Agree 105 (55)

The hands-on experience of a pelvic EUA was more helpful than the pelvic exam on a standardized patient

Strongly Disagree 24 (13)
Disagree 41 (21)
Neutral 47 (24)
Agree 44 (23)
Strongly Agree 33 (17)

I worry that if medical students are not able to perform pelvic EUAs I will be less prepared for my intended residency

Strongly Disagree 40 (21)
Disagree 41 (21)
Neutral 39 (20)
Agree 46 (24)
Strongly Agree 23 (12)

I feel I have better skills for performing pelvic exams because of practicing pelvic exams under anesthesia

Strongly Disagree 8 (4)
Disagree 17 (9)
Neutral 40 (21)
Agree 71 (37)
Strongly Agree 51 (27)

I feel most patients directly benefit from having medical students involved in their care

Strongly Disagree 2 (1)
Disagree 18 (9)
Neutral 35 (18)
Agree 82 (43)
Strongly Agree 51 (27)
*

Percentages do not total 100% because multiple answers were allowed and not all participants provided an answer; the denominator is total subjects (192).