Effects of undergraduate medical students’ individual attributes on perceptions of encounters with positive and negative role models

Tagawa, Masami

doi:10.1186/s12909-016-0686-1

Table 2 Numbers and attributes of students who encountered role models (RMs) by category, context, and type

From: Effects of undergraduate medical students’ individual attributes on perceptions of encounters with positive and negative role models

RMs			Students who encountered RMs
Category of behaviors & attributes	Context of encounter	Type Positive/Negative	Total	Gender				Age						Admission
				Male		Female		<24		24–27		>27		General		Bachelor
				n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
			115	75	100 %	40	100 %	47	100 %	43	100 %	25	100 %	102	100 %	13	100 %
a. Relationship with patients	Formal	Positive	102	66	88.0 %	36	90.0 %	44	93.6 %	38	88.4 %	20	80.0 %	93	91.2 %	9	69.2 %
		Negative	73	50	66.7 %	23	57.5 %	26	55.3 %	29	67.4 %	18	72.0 %	65	63.7 %	8	61.5 %
	Others	Positive	69	45	60.0 %	24	60.0 %	26	55.3 %	25	58.1 %	18	72.0 %	62	60.8 %	7	53.8 %
		Negative	38	32	42.7 %	6	15.0 %	12	25.5 %	14	32.6 %	12	48.0 %	32	31.4 %	6	46.2 %	a
b. Clinical expertise	Formal	Positive	103	68	90.7 %	35	87.5 %	41	87.2 %	40	93.0 %	22	88.0 %	92	90.2 %	11	84.6 %
		Negative	27	18	24.0 %	9	22.5 %	10	21.3 %	10	23.3 %	7	28.0 %	25	24.5 %	2	15.4 %
	Others	Positive	61	44	58.7 %	17	42.5 %	25	53.2 %	22	51.2 %	14	56.0 %	56	54.9 %	5	38.5 %
		Negative	19	16	21.3 %	3	7.5 %	4	8.5 %	7	16.3 %	8	32.0 %	17	16.7 %	2	15.4 %	b
c. Humanity, personal attributes	Formal	Positive	100	64	85.3 %	36	90.0 %	42	89.4 %	39	90.7 %	19	76.0 %	92	90.2 %	8	61.5 %
		Negative	65	45	60.0 %	20	50.0 %	23	48.9 %	23	53.5 %	19	76.0 %	57	55.9 %	8	61.5 %
	Others	Positive	66	43	57.3 %	23	57.5 %	25	53.2 %	27	62.8 %	14	56.0 %	60	58.8 %	6	46.2 %
		Negative	30	23	30.7 %	7	17.5 %	8	17.0 %	11	25.6 %	11	44.0 %	24	23.5 %	6	46.2 %
d. Lifestyle	Formal	Positive	84	58	77.3 %	26	65.0 %	36	76.6 %	31	72.1 %	17	68.0 %	75	73.5 %	9	69.2 %
		Negative	36	26	34.7 %	10	25.0 %	12	25.5 %	15	34.9 %	9	36.0 %	32	31.4 %	4	30.8 %
	Others	Positive	64	43	57.3 %	21	52.5 %	22	46.8 %	28	65.1 %	14	56.0 %	58	56.9 %	6	46.2 %
		Negative	19	16	21.3 %	3	7.5 %	5	10.6 %	8	18.6 %	6	24.0 %	17	16.7 %	2	15.4 %
e. Teaching students and health care professionals	Formal	Positive	104	66	88.0 %	38	95.0 %	43	91.5 %	42	97.7 %	19	76.0 %	95	93.1 %	9	69.2 %
		Negative	65	45	60.0 %	20	50.0 %	22	46.8 %	25	58.1 %	18	72.0 %	58	56.9 %	7	53.8 %
	Others	Positive	61	42	56.0 %	19	47.5 %	24	51.1 %	22	51.2 %	15	60.0 %	55	53.9 %	6	46.2 %
		Negative	22	18	24.0 %	4	10.0 %	2	6.4 %	7	16.3 %	12	48.0 %	16	15.7 %	6	46.2 %	c
f. Contributions to the community	Formal	Positive	102	65	86.7 %	37	92.5 %	43	91.5 %	40	93.0 %	19	76.0 %	91	89.2 %	11	84.6 %
		Negative	22	16	21.3 %	6	15.0 %	6	12.8 %	10	23.3 %	6	24.0 %	20	19.6 %	2	15.4 %
	Others	Positive	64	42	56.0 %	22	55.0 %	24	51.1 %	25	58.1 %	15	60.0 %	57	55.9 %	7	53.8 %
		Negative	14	13	17.3 %	1	2.5 %	2	4.3 %	5	11.6 %	7	28.0 %	12	11.8 %	2	15.4 %	d

Formal: RM encounters in formal clinical courses
Others: RM encounters in informal situations
a-d: Logistic regression was applied to predict RM encounters by category, context, and type (positive or negative) (independent variable) with gender, age, and admission group as independent variables. Significant variables (italic) in the equations were gender (a) and age (b,c,d)
^aR2(Nagelkerke)0.144, Predicted percentage correct 67.8, Significant variable in the equation (gender, sig. <0.01, Exp(B) 4.266)
^bR2(Nagelkerke)0.153, Predicted percentage correct 83.5, Significant variable in the equation (age, sig. <0.05, Exp(B) 2.814)
^cR2(Nagelkerke)0.248, Predicted percentage correct 80.0, Significant variable in the equation (age, sig. <0.01, Exp(B) 3.310)
^dR2(Nagelkerke)0.144, Predicted percentage correct 87.8, Significant variable in the equation (age, sig. <0.05, Exp(B) 3.287)

Back to article page

ISSN: 1472-6920

Contact us

Submission enquiries: bmcmedicaleducation@biomedcentral.com
General enquiries: ORSupport@springernature.com

BMC Medical Education

Contact us