Student BMJ Review: December 2007 issue

I am delighted to have been given the opportunity to review the December issue of the sBMJ, especially as it has allowed me to truly appreciate what the journal has to offer. Although I am in my final year as a medical student, and have been receiving the sBMJ monthly for a number of years, reviewing this issue has shown that there is more to the journal than just a pleasant read about medical topics. There are legal, political, and social issues all broached within the publication.

The standard of writing is very high and the layout of the issue is appealing, with good use of graphics and text styles. These features provide the journal with a professional finish and make it easy to follow.

The range of authors included in this issue is excellent, in respect to both their stage of career and country of residence. The variety of articles is also vast, with something of interest to medical students in every year. As a final year student I found the article, “Shadowing the Junior Doctor” particularly relevant (and reassuring) for my stage.

The editorial for this issue was interesting and set the tone for the journal as an informative, interactive and youthful publication. Starting with the article entitled “Attending Medical School in Virtual Reality”, was a particularly good way to instantly bring the theme of the issue, and the relevance of developments in technology to the attention of medical students. The editorial regarding eHealth took an interesting look at modern ethical issues raised by the use of technology in practice, and was complimented by the piece regarding information technology in developing countries. These two articles acted as springboards for internal debate about the benefits and drawbacks of expanding technology in the healthcare setting.

I particularly enjoyed the editorial discussing the healthcare provisions in the UK for migrants, which introduced the legal and governmental issues surrounding an issue I had not previously been informed about. The head-to-head debate was relevant to students and the arguments from both sides were well presented. It was interesting to hear the views of those involved with medical education regarding such a well discussed issue.

Currently, there is the ability to respond to the head-to-head debate with the “rapid response” feature of the sBMJ website, but as of the date of this review no responses had been submitted. I would propose that it might be interesting to allow an online debate to follow on from the article itself, such as those conducted by national newspapers on their websites. I think having this feature would potentially stimulate wider thinking about topical issues among medical students, and get a broader range of response to the feature.

“When my patient died”, was an excellent example of how articles about personal experiences work within the context of the journal. I would suggest that actual medical student experiences are always the way difficult issues such as bereavement in the workplace are dealt with, as they provide an emotive starting point for students to think about themselves in similar situations. One way of expanding on this would be to include a “patient’s perspective” to provide a more holistic approach to clinical problems.

The prescribing articles with the sBMJ are always of a high standard and the use of a case example works well as a structure for breaking up, and leading students through, the problem. This month’s topic of prescribing in pregnancy was informative and well written. Other articles which work particularly well are where supervisors and students submit work together. This is because there is the guidance and experience of the supervisor, balanced with the input of the student which ensures that the article is pitched at the correct level. A good example of this was the article regarding antiretroviral therapy in the December issue.

The careers and people sections are both very interesting. I particularly liked the interview with Monty Mythen in this issue. I would suggest that expanding on these sections could be a potential point for the future. In the current climate of MMC, where decisions regarding specialities are potentially being made earlier than before, it would be helpful each month to have a different medical occupation explored. For example, this could include an overview of the job and then opinions from those at different stages in their career with advice as to how to experience while at medical school.

This month’s paper review was exploring new methods of counting CD4 cells. As reviewing articles for coursework is becoming more and more a feature of the undergraduate medical curriculum, I think that including articles first published in the BMJ with a summary review is a good stepping stone for younger students. As some students may not necessarily have had to read articles in journals prior to medical school, then one way to utilise this feature further would be to print the details of the paper which will be reviewed in the sBMJ ahead of its distribution. Ideally, it would be possible to provide a link to the paper online which the readers could access, and therefore consider their own views, prior to the professional review being printed in the following month’s issue. This would allow students to develop their own critical analysis skills should they wish to, and make sBMJ more than a subscription you sign up to at the fresher’s fayre, but a way of engaging in medicine beyond lectures.

Summary of action points

1. Have a facility for an online debate forum such as those seen online for national newspaper articles.
2. Include a “patient’s perspective” section for real-life situations to compliment clinical experience articles from students.
3. Include a more regular feature which offers advice on careers in medicine which are not necessarily obvious from clinical attachments.
4. Include details of the research paper to be reviewed an issue in advance. Thereby allow those who are interested to look up the paper before the next issue, and compare their own views with that of the professional review in the sBMJ.

   

 Printable version    Download    E-mail this to a friend    Respond to this article