Comparative Analysis of Perception of MBBS Students on Foundation Course : A Questionnaire Based Study

Introduction: The Foundation Course was designed to provide a sound foundation for learning in the MBBS curriculum and later in students’ professional careers. Although the document on CBME was prepared by doyens in the medical field after years of toil, it is only natural for any program to face difficulties during the implementation phase. Faculty members are facing new, technology-enhanced teaching methods at the institutional level, with varied lectures on professionalism, ethics, communication, skill acquisition, language development, spirituality, and miscellaneous brainstorming lectures to induce confidence in managing problems in medical practice.Objective: Primary Objectives: To evaluate students’ perception of the foundation course and to evaluate the perception of faculty members about the foundation course.Secondary objective: To assess the gap between the foundation course program schedule and its implementation.Materials and Methods: Study design: This was a single-center, cross-sectional, observational study conducted as an educational design study.Study Population: The entry batches of 2022 and 2023 were the intended population (group 1). Responses from the entry batches of 2021 and 2020 were also taken for comparison (group 2).Sampling technique: Total enumeration.Method of data collection: Data was collected via a self-administered questionnaire. Feedback from all six modules was taken using a modified Likert scale. Feedback from teachers was recorded using a different Google Form that had modified Likert scoring and scope for individual responses. Duration: 2 months.Results: There was good consensus among students about all modules of the foundation course in the early response group (group 1), with positive response rates ranging from 75% to 96%. The responses were similar in the late response group, except for the professional development and ethics module and the language and computer module. The difference was statistically significant (p-values < 0.016 and 0.007, all