Qualitative study evaluates military medicine education in Myanmar, highlighting gaps in practical training and curriculum alignment.
Introduction: This study evaluates military medicine education at the Defence Services Medical Academy (DSMA) in Myanmar, focusing on curriculum structure, practical training quality, and alignment with evolving military and civilian healthcare needs. Despite a comprehensive approach, identified gaps in practical training (e.g., trauma care, CBRN management) and curriculum continuity hinder student preparedness for modern military medicine. Methods: This qualitative study used Focused Group Discussions (FGDs) with 24 participants (12 students, 12 faculty) to explore themes like time constraints, practical training, curriculum integration, and modern technology integration. Data were analysed using MAXQDA 24 to identify key themes related to the curriculum’s content and effectiveness. Results: Findings indicate that while the military medicine module of DSMA covers a broad range of topics, practical training remains inadequate, especially in critical areas such as trauma care, CBRN management, and digital health technologies. Furthermore, curriculum continuity issues, marked by disconnected annual topics, impede clear progression. The study recommends revising the module to include modern warfare medicine, expanding hands-on training, and incorporating mobile learning platforms. It also suggests increasing simulation-based training, restructuring the module to enhance its practical application, and establishing a dedicated military medicine department. Conclusion: The study identifies critical gaps in DSMA’s curriculum, particularly in practical training (e.g., trauma, CBRN) and coherence. These must be addressed to better prepare students for the challenges of modern military and civilian healthcare. Proposed improvements will ensure DSMA graduates are equipped to handle contemporary healthcare demands, reinforcing the academy’s role as a leader in military medical education.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Phyo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: