[Preparing for patient work founded on evidence in medical school - a questionnaire study on final-year medical students].

Lakartidningen Pub Date : 2025-01-08
Karin Mossberg, Martin Garwicz, Pontus Henriksson, Riitta Möller, Estelle Naumburg, Jeanette Wahlberg, Susanna M Wallerstedt
{"title":"[Preparing for patient work founded on evidence in medical school - a questionnaire study on final-year medical students].","authors":"Karin Mossberg, Martin Garwicz, Pontus Henriksson, Riitta Möller, Estelle Naumburg, Jeanette Wahlberg, Susanna M Wallerstedt","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Several of the requirements for obtaining a medical degree according to the Swedish Higher Education Ordinance illustrate the scientific basis of the profession, and systematic reviews as well as health technology assessments (HTA) constitute cornerstones in evidence-based medicine. In this study, medical students' experience of scientific education related to the profession was explored, and their knowledge achieved was sampled by five multiple-choice questions (MCQ). A total of 433 out of 641 students attending the final semester in six medical schools in Sweden participated (response rate: 68%). Most of them experienced that a majority of the scientifically related learning outcomes for the medical degree had been adequately examined. Regarding the steps of a systematic review, 60% stated that they had been trained to define a specific research question, 64% to find relevant literature according to such a specific research question, 72% to assess scientific articles according to a checklist, 40% to compile results from several studies, and 35% to assess the certainty of evidence according to GRADE. Only 6% stated that they had received education regarding HTA, a factor that was strongly associated with students' perception that they had obtained adequate skills regarding how patient work is based on scientific evidence (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 14.1; 95% CI 1.80-110). Such an association was also found for credit-awarded hands-on evidence-related learning activities during clinical courses (OR 2.72; 95% CI 1.02-7.24). The median student answered 3 of 5 MCQs correctly. The results of a case/control study, a forest plot, and the concept of cost-effectiveness were frequently interpreted erroneously. In conclusion, several aspects of the scientific basis for professional life as a medical doctor seem to be well covered in the medical degree program, whereas others deserve increased attention.</p>","PeriodicalId":17988,"journal":{"name":"Lakartidningen","volume":"122 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lakartidningen","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Several of the requirements for obtaining a medical degree according to the Swedish Higher Education Ordinance illustrate the scientific basis of the profession, and systematic reviews as well as health technology assessments (HTA) constitute cornerstones in evidence-based medicine. In this study, medical students' experience of scientific education related to the profession was explored, and their knowledge achieved was sampled by five multiple-choice questions (MCQ). A total of 433 out of 641 students attending the final semester in six medical schools in Sweden participated (response rate: 68%). Most of them experienced that a majority of the scientifically related learning outcomes for the medical degree had been adequately examined. Regarding the steps of a systematic review, 60% stated that they had been trained to define a specific research question, 64% to find relevant literature according to such a specific research question, 72% to assess scientific articles according to a checklist, 40% to compile results from several studies, and 35% to assess the certainty of evidence according to GRADE. Only 6% stated that they had received education regarding HTA, a factor that was strongly associated with students' perception that they had obtained adequate skills regarding how patient work is based on scientific evidence (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 14.1; 95% CI 1.80-110). Such an association was also found for credit-awarded hands-on evidence-related learning activities during clinical courses (OR 2.72; 95% CI 1.02-7.24). The median student answered 3 of 5 MCQs correctly. The results of a case/control study, a forest plot, and the concept of cost-effectiveness were frequently interpreted erroneously. In conclusion, several aspects of the scientific basis for professional life as a medical doctor seem to be well covered in the medical degree program, whereas others deserve increased attention.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[以医学院证据为基础为病人工作做准备——对医学院最后一年学生的问卷调查研究]。
根据《瑞典高等教育条例》,获得医学学位的若干要求说明了该专业的科学基础,系统审查和卫生技术评估(HTA)构成了循证医学的基石。本研究探讨医学生的专业相关科学教育经验,并以五道选择题(MCQ)抽样调查医学生所获得的知识。在瑞典六所医学院最后一个学期的641名学生中,共有433人参加了调查(回复率:68%)。他们中的大多数人认为,医学学位的大多数与科学有关的学习成果都得到了充分审查。关于系统评价的步骤,60%的人表示他们接受过定义特定研究问题的培训,64%的人根据特定研究问题找到相关文献,72%的人根据清单评估科学文章,40%的人汇编几项研究的结果,35%的人根据GRADE评估证据的确定性。只有6%的人表示他们接受过关于HTA的教育,这一因素与学生认为他们获得了足够的技能,了解如何根据科学证据进行患者工作密切相关(调整比值比[OR] 14.1;95% ci 1.80-110)。在临床课程中获得学分的实践相关学习活动中也发现了这种关联(OR 2.72;95% ci 1.02-7.24)。中等水平的学生答对了5道mcq中的3道。案例/对照研究、森林样地和成本效益概念的结果经常被错误地解释。总之,医学学位课程似乎很好地涵盖了医生职业生活的科学基础的几个方面,而其他方面则值得更多关注。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Lakartidningen
Lakartidningen Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
134
期刊最新文献
[AmbuReg - the Swedish quality register for emergency medical services]. [Gene editing is changing the treatment of hereditary diseases]. ABC: Aortagraftinfektioner. Cobenfy – ett nytt alternativ för behandling av schizofreni. [Paths to Swedish medical license for international medical graduates].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1