Training in vaccinology of Spanish medical students

J. Tuells, C. Magdalena Egoavil, E. Hoz Tuells, O. Lebrero Catalá, C. Lebrero Catalá, E. Montagud
{"title":"Training in vaccinology of Spanish medical students","authors":"J. Tuells, C. Magdalena Egoavil, E. Hoz Tuells, O. Lebrero Catalá, C. Lebrero Catalá, E. Montagud","doi":"10.32440/ar.2021.138.03.org04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The objective of the study was to explore the knowledge and attitudes of Spanish medical students about vaccines, their sources of information, the training received during their studies and their future expectations about postgraduate training activities. A descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out in three Spanish universities between February 1 and May 31, 2019, through a self-administered survey of 55 questions: baseline sociodemographic questionnaire, knowledge about vaccination, necessary vaccines in health personnel, sources of information and opinion on the teaching received in vaccinology. The scale had a Cronbach’s alpha level of 0.767. There was a 67.2% (1821/2709) contact rate, a 52.2% (951/1821) response rate, and an eligibility of 93.2% (887/951). The mean age was 21.7 ± 3.6 years, of which 67.9% (646/1821) were women. The mean score for knowledge was 44.6 (SD 4.3), with a good proportion of correct answers and with significant differences between first and second cycle students, in addition to differences by gender in two statements: vaccines are effective and vaccination must be mandatory to achieve universal coverage. 34.98% (332/949) did not know the vaccination schedule. The mean attitude score was 36.7 (SD 4.1). The main sources of information on vaccines came from the academic environment and the family / internet and 87.7% (828/951) declared only ≤3 courses related to vaccination. 80.1% (461/951) believed that doctors should be the best trained professionals in vaccination. 51.2% believed that universities should be the central institution for training in vaccines during postgraduate studies, compared to 25.2% professional associations, 16.4% scientific societies and only 5.4% the pharmaceutical industry. The deficient training in vaccinology of Spanish medical students must be improved from academic institutions and professional associations, both undergraduate and graduate.","PeriodicalId":75487,"journal":{"name":"Anales de la Real Academia Nacional de Medicina","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anales de la Real Academia Nacional de Medicina","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32440/ar.2021.138.03.org04","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

The objective of the study was to explore the knowledge and attitudes of Spanish medical students about vaccines, their sources of information, the training received during their studies and their future expectations about postgraduate training activities. A descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out in three Spanish universities between February 1 and May 31, 2019, through a self-administered survey of 55 questions: baseline sociodemographic questionnaire, knowledge about vaccination, necessary vaccines in health personnel, sources of information and opinion on the teaching received in vaccinology. The scale had a Cronbach’s alpha level of 0.767. There was a 67.2% (1821/2709) contact rate, a 52.2% (951/1821) response rate, and an eligibility of 93.2% (887/951). The mean age was 21.7 ± 3.6 years, of which 67.9% (646/1821) were women. The mean score for knowledge was 44.6 (SD 4.3), with a good proportion of correct answers and with significant differences between first and second cycle students, in addition to differences by gender in two statements: vaccines are effective and vaccination must be mandatory to achieve universal coverage. 34.98% (332/949) did not know the vaccination schedule. The mean attitude score was 36.7 (SD 4.1). The main sources of information on vaccines came from the academic environment and the family / internet and 87.7% (828/951) declared only ≤3 courses related to vaccination. 80.1% (461/951) believed that doctors should be the best trained professionals in vaccination. 51.2% believed that universities should be the central institution for training in vaccines during postgraduate studies, compared to 25.2% professional associations, 16.4% scientific societies and only 5.4% the pharmaceutical industry. The deficient training in vaccinology of Spanish medical students must be improved from academic institutions and professional associations, both undergraduate and graduate.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对西班牙医科学生进行疫苗学培训
这项研究的目的是探讨西班牙医科学生对疫苗的知识和态度、他们的信息来源、他们在学习期间接受的培训以及他们对研究生培训活动的未来期望。2019年2月1日至5月31日期间,在西班牙三所大学进行了一项描述性横断面研究,通过一项自我管理的55个问题的调查:基线社会人口调查问卷、疫苗接种知识、卫生人员所需疫苗、信息来源和对疫苗学教学的看法。量表的Cronbach 's alpha水平为0.767。接触率为67.2%(1821/2709),应答率为52.2%(951/1821),入选率为93.2%(887/951)。平均年龄21.7±3.6岁,女性占67.9%(646/1821)。知识的平均得分为44.6分(标准差4.3分),正确答案的比例很高,第一和第二周期学生之间存在显著差异,此外,在疫苗有效和必须强制接种以实现普遍覆盖两项陈述中存在性别差异。34.98%(332/949)不知道疫苗接种计划。平均态度得分为36.7分(SD 4.1)。疫苗信息的主要来源是学术环境和家庭/网络,87.7%(828/951)的学生只报了≤3门与疫苗接种相关的课程。80.1%(461/951)的受访者认为医生应是疫苗接种培训最好的专业人员。51.2%的人认为大学应该是研究生学习期间疫苗培训的中心机构,相比之下,25.2%的专业协会、16.4%的科学学会和只有5.4%的制药行业持这种观点。必须从学术机构和专业协会改善西班牙医科学生在疫苗学方面的培训不足,包括本科生和研究生。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Uteroglobine and IL2R polymorphisms are associated with articular damaged and surgical joint in patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Neuronal Aging – Is it reversible? Atherosclerosis and systemic lupus erythematosus Climate change, health and the elderly Modifications or organ transplantation due to viral infection by Covid 19
×
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