Has teaching about intellectual disability healthcare in Australian medical schools improved? A 20-year comparison of curricula audits

Table 2 Intellectual disability units that utilised each teaching method

Teaching method^a	Compulsory units (%; no. schools^b)		Elective units (%; no. schools)		Total units (%; no. schools)
	T1 n = 44 units	T2 n = 36 units	T1 n = 8 units	T2 n = 7 units	T1 n = 55^c units	T2 n = 43 units
Lectures	24 (54.5%; 8)	26 (72.2%; 6)	2 (25.0%; 1)	2 (28.6%; 2)	27 (49.1%; 8)	28 (65.1%; 7)
Tutorial	8 (18.2%; 4)	5 (13.9%; 3)	2 (25.0%; 2)	2 (28.6%; 1)	11 (20.0%; 6)	7 (16.3%; 3)
Seminar/Workshop	13 (29.5%; 6)	7 (19.4%; 3)	1 (12.5%; 1)	4 (57.1%; 3)	15 (27.3%; 6)	11 (25.6%; 4)
Case study	5 (11.4%; 4)	7 (19.4%; 2)	1 (12.5%; 1)	0 (0.0%; 0)	6 (10.9%; 5)	7 (16.3%; 2)
Other method^d	8 (18.2%; 4)	2 (5.6%; 2)	1 (12.5%; 1)	3 (42.9%; 3)	9 (16.4%; 4)	5 (11.6%; 4)

^a More than one method could be used to teach each ID unit (subsequently no column totals are displayed)
^bNumber of schools across which units were taught
^c Compulsory/elective status was missing for 3 units at T1 for one school (lecture, tutorial and seminar/workshop)
^d Other methods at T1 included a camp (4-days with 1:1 care of adult with ID), clinical demonstrations, demonstration lecture, interview, role play, and video tapes; and at T2 included clinical assessment, clinical coaching and practicals, clinical day and self-directed learning

ISSN: 1472-6920