Skip to main content

Table 2 Proportion of medical students who changed in agreement to different statements and confidence on various aspects biomedical research, n (%)

From: Inclination towards research and the pursuit of a research career among medical students: an international cohort study

    Institutionsa  
  Total JCU PUC BGU DUMC NTNU NUS
  (n = 332) (n = 45) (n = 20) (n = 29) (n = 37) (n = 47) (n = 154)
Agreement with statement: Nc (%) P-valueb
Biostatistics
 I would like to learn more about biostatistics. Decreased 37/329 (11.2) 4/44 (9.1) 0 (0.0) 4 (13.8) 2/36 (5.6) 9 (19.1) 18/153 (11.8) < 0.001*
Increased 62/329 (18.8) 3/44 (6.8) 11 (55.0) 11 (37.9) 4/36 (11.1) 10 (21.3) 23/153 (15.0)  
 I can understand almost all of the statistical terms that I encounter in journal articles. Decreased 43/330 (13.0) 8 (17.8) 5 (25.0) 1 (3.4) 3 (8.1) 2 (4.3) 24/152 (15.8) 0.016*
Increased 111/330 (33.6) 14 (31.1) 9 (45.0) 16 (55.2) 8 (21.6) 15 (31.9) 49/152 (32.2)  
 It is easy to manipulate statistics to support results desired by investigators. Decreased 43/328 (13.1) 11 (24.4) 4 (20.0) 1/28 (3.6) 1/36 (2.8) 1 (2.1) 25/152 (16.4) < 0.001*
Increased 62/328 (18.9) 5 (11.1) 2 (10.0) 7/28 (25.0) 4/36 (11.1) 15 (31.9) 29/152 (19.1)  
 To be an intelligent reader of the biomedical literature, it is necessary to know something about statistics. Decreased 4/330 (1.2) 1/44 (2.3) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 3/153 (2.0) < 0.001*
Increased 9/330 (2.7) 6/44 (13.6) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 3/153 (2.0)  
Research Ethics
 I would like to learn more about research ethics. Decreased 77/327 (23.5) 8 (17.8) 6/19 (31.6) 7 (24.1) 9 (24.3) 11 (23.4) 36/150 (24.0) 0.888
Increased 31 /327 (9.5) 3 (6.7) 1/19 (5.3) 1 (3.4) 3 (8.1) 5 (10.6) 18/150 (12.0)  
 I can understand almost all of the research ethics terms that I encounter in journal articles. Decreased 37/329 (11.2) 5 (11.1) 4 (20.0) 2 (6.9) 0 (0.0) 3 (6.4) 23/151 (15.2) 0.182
Increased 116/329 (35.3) 15 (33.3) 6 (30.0) 9 (31.0) 11 (29.7) 20 (42.6) 55/151 (36.4)  
 To be an intelligent reader of the biomedical literature, it is necessary to know something about research ethics. Decreased 29/327 (8.9) 2 (4.4) 2/19 (10.5) 1 (3.4) 3 (8.1) 3/46 (6.5) 18/151 (11.9) 0.655
Increased 32/327 (9.8) 4 (8.9) 2/19 (10.5) 1 (3.4) 4 (10.8) 3/46 (6.5) 18/151 (11.9)  
Study Design
 I am confident I can design a study to answer a specific hypothesis. Decreased 49/328 (14.9) 11/44 (25.0) 4 (20.0) 2 (6.9) 2 (5.4) 8 (17.0) 22/151 (14.6) 0.032*
Increased 99/328 (30.2) 8/44 (18.2) 6 (30.0) 12 (41.4) 10 (27.0) 22 (46.8) 41/151 (27.2)  
 I can understand almost all of the study design terms (e.g. sampling, case-control, Decreased 20/328 (6.1) 3/44 (6.8) 1 (5.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (2.7) 1 (2.1) 14/151 (9.3) < 0.001*
Increased 128/328 (39.0) 11/44 (25.0) 9 (45.0) 21 (72.4) 15 (40.5) 25 (53.2) 47/151 (31.1)  
 To be an intelligent reader of the biomedical literature, it is necessary to know something about study design Decreased 13/325 (4.0) 2/44 (4.5) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 11/150 (7.3) 0.102
Increased 17/325 (5.2) 2/44 (4.5) 1 (5.0) 1 (3.4) 0 (0.0) 1/45 (2.2) 12/150 (8.0)  
Confidence in: Biostatistics N (%)  
 Interpreting the P value for a given result Decreased 16/328 (4.9) 1 (2.2) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1/46 (2.2) 14/152 (9.2) < 0.001*
Increased 141/328 (43.0) 26 (57.8) 11 (55.0) 16/28 (57.1) 12 (32.4) 25/46 (54.3) 51/152 (33.6)  
 Interpreting the implications to clinical practice for a given result from a statistical analysis Decreased 24/330 (7.3) 1 (2.2) 2 (10.0) 1/28 (3.6) 1 (2.7) 2 (4.3) 17/153 (11.1) 0.097
Increased 133/330 (40.3) 19 (42.2) 12 (60.0) 15/28 (53.6) 15 (40.5) 22 (46.8) 50/153 (32.7)  
 Assessing if the correct statistical procedure was used to answer a research question Decreased 45/327 (13.8) 7/44 (15.9) 9/19 (47.4) 3/28 (10.7) 3 (8.1) 5/46 (10.9) 18/153 (11.8) < 0.001*
Increased 94/327 (28.7) 7/44 (15.9) 4/19 (21.1) 12/28 (42.9) 12 (32.4) 10/46 (21.7) 49/153 (32.0)  
 Identifying the factors that influence the adequacy of a study’s sample size Decreased 65/330 (19.7) 11 (24.4) 13 (65.0) 4/28 (14.3) 2 (5.4) 6 (12.8) 29/153 (19.0) < 0.001*
Increased 84/330 (25.5) 9 (20.0) 1 (5.0) 6/28 (21.4) 13 (35.1) 19 (40.4) 36/153 (23.5)  
 Evaluating diagnostic tests Decreased 24/327 (7.3) 2/43 (4.7) 2 (10.0) 2 (6.9) 0 (0.0) 4 (8.5) 14/151 (9.3) 0.154
Increased 152/327 (46.5) 14/43 (32.6) 10 (50.0) 18 (62.1) 21 (56.8) 25 (53.2) 64/151 (42.4)  
 Analyzing the data to find association between two variables Decreased 52/328 (15.9) 8/44 (18.2) 5 (25.0) 3 (10.3) 1 (2.7) 6 (12.8) 29/151 (19.2) 0.039*
Increased 88/328 (26.8) 4/44 (9.1) 6 (30.0) 12 (41.4) 13 (35.1) 12 (25.5) 41/151 (27.2)  
 Analyzing the data to find correlation between two variables Decreased 57/328 (17.4) 7/44 (15.9) 6 (30.0) 2 (6.9) 1 (2.7) 9 (19.1) 32/151 (21.2) < 0.001*
Increased 84/328 (25.6) 4/44 (9.1) 5 (25.0) 15 (51.7) 12 (32.4) 9 (19.1) 39/151 (25.8)  
Research Ethics
 Applying ethical principles (e.g. confidentiality, beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy) Decreased 23/323 (7.1) 3 (6.7) 1/19 (5.3) 3/27 (11.1) 1 (2.7) 6 (12.8) 9/148 (6.1) 0.021*
Increased 64/323 (19.8) 6 (13.3) 3/19 (15.8) 3/27 (11.1) 14 (37.8) 15 (31.9) 23/148 (15.5)  
Research Ethics
 Applying for an approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) / Ethics Committee Decreased 21/324 (6.5) 7 (15.6) 3 (15.0) 1/26 (3.8) 1 (2.7) 2 (4.3) 7/149 (4.7) 0.043*
Increased 146/324 (45.1) 14 (31.1) 5 (25.0) 10/26 (38.5) 21 (56.8) 26 (55.3) 70/149 (47.0)  
 Criteria to justify authorship in research journal publications Decreased 27/324 (8.3) 7 (15.6) 1/19 (5.3) 3/28 (10.7) 1 (2.7) 0 (0.0) 15/149 (10.1) 0.005*
Increased 113/324 (34.9) 5 (11.1) 5/19 (26.3) 8/28 (28.6) 19 (51.4) 20/46 (43.5) 56/149 (37.6)  
 Awareness of the actions that constitute publication misconduct Decreased 47/319 (14.7) 5 (11.1) 4 (20.0) 3/28 (10.7) 2 (5.4) 3/46 (6.5) 30/143 (21.0) 0.017*
Increased 94/319 (29.5) 9 (20.0) 3 (15.0) 6/28 (21.4) 18 (48.6) 16/46 (34.8) 42/143 (29.4)  
Study Design
 Knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of each study design Decreased 19/327 (5.8) 4/43 (9.3) 1 (5.0) 1 (3.4) 0 (0.0) 1 (2.1) 12/151 (7.9) 0.081*
Increased 145/327 (44.3) 12/43 (27.9) 14 (70.0) 16 (55.2) 17 (45.9) 22 (46.8) 64/151 (42.4)  
 Identifying ways of reducing bias when designing studies Decreased 48/328 (14.6) 12/44 (27.3) 4 (20.0) 1 (3.4) 3 (8.1) 4 (8.5) 24/151 (15.9) < 0.001*
Increased 106/328 (32.3) 1/44 (2.3) 8 (40.0) 21 (72.4) 15 (40.5) 19 (40.4) 42/151 (27.8)  
  1. aJCU James Cook University, PUC Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, BGU Ben-Gurion University, DUMC Duke University Medical Centre, NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NUS National University of Singapore (inclusive of Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine and from Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School)
  2. bBased on Chi-square test
  3. cRemaining data not reported in the table had ‘no change’ in those statements
  4. *p-value < 0.05 were statistically significant