Enhancing autonomy in veterinary students: exploring the ‘veterinary student team’ principle

Abstract

Background: According to the Self-Determination Theory, intrinsic motivation is stimulated when the need for autonomy, relatedness and competence are met. Research has shown that autonomous regulation of behaviour is associated with greater engagement, better performance, higher quality learning and greater psychological well-being. Workplace learning is a form of education with the potential to stimulate the intrinsic motivation of students. In medical ‘student-run clinics’, undergraduate students work as a team that autonomously runs the clinic and practice their future profession under supervision of a graduated physician. Student-run clinics seem to be a form of education in which autonomy can be stimulated, but there is not much research on this connection. Additionally, medical student-run clinics are set up widely to implement workplace learning into the curriculum, while veterinary student-run clinics have yet to be described. Aim: To explore the definition of ‘student teams’ in small animal veterinary clinics in the Netherlands and investigate whether these teams are comparable to medical student-run clinics. Furthermore, this study aims to investigate how working in a student team fosters perceived autonomy of veterinary students and which factors are involved. Methods: 15 students and 3 (student) managers of student teams of 4 veterinary clinics participated in this mixed-method study with semi-structured interviews and questionnaires. The interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. With an inductive approach, themes were set up and described. Results: Student teams are groups of veterinary students working in small-animal veterinary clinics in the Netherlands. In two clinics, the students are allowed to perform consultations on their own. This is comparable to the student-run clinic principle, aside from the fact that the students in these clinics work independently and not in a team of students that autonomously runs a clinic, like in student-run clinics. The work of the students in the other clinics is not comparable to student-run clinics. Their perceived autonomy is positively influenced by goal setting, interpersonal and social relations, the students’ own personality and development of competence, while other aspects of their personality, job demands, hierarchy within the clinic and policies negatively influence their perceived autonomy. Conclusion: Student teams in veterinary clinics are not fully comparable to medical student-run clinics. External and internal influences emerged that affect perceived autonomy of students in student teams both negatively and positively. Students who have worked in a student team for a longer period report a certain level autonomy, but due to multiple factors it cannot be said with certainty how exactly this work fosters perceived autonomy of these students.