Measuring student satisfaction as the first assessment of the Program of Combined Studies in Medicine, an MD/PhD-like program of the Faculty of Medicine, National Autonomous University of Mexico

Martínez-Flisser, Gina; Flisser, Ana; Castro-Guerrero, Mario Alberto; Plett-Torres, Tanya

doi:10.1186/s12909-020-02357-1

Table 2 Distribution of dimensions according to the satisfiers

From: Measuring student satisfaction as the first assessment of the Program of Combined Studies in Medicine, an MD/PhD-like program of the Faculty of Medicine, National Autonomous University of Mexico

Dimensions	Characteristic	Factors
	Characteristic	Recommendation of the advisor					Fulfillment of scientific expectations					Experience as a PECEM student
	n = 262	Yes		No		p*	Yes		No		p*	Excellent-good		Regular-very poor		p*
		n	%	n	%		n	%	n	%		n	%	n	%
		228	87	34	13		230	88	32	12		245	94	17	6
Perceived quality of the advisor	The level of the advisor’s knowledge of the field was:
	Very limited (2)	0	0	2	6	< 0.001	0	0	2	6	< 0.001	2	1	0	0	0.058
	Limited (0)	0	0	0	0		0	0	0	0		0	0	0	0
	Regular (6)	5	2	1	3		4	2	2	6		5	2	1	6
	Broad (33)	20	9	13	38		24	10	9	28		28	11	5	29
	Very broad (221)	203	89	18	53		202	88	19	60		210	86	11	65
	The advisor’s attitude towards science in Mexico was:
	Very negative (1)	0	0	1	3	< 0.001	0	0	1	3	0.002	0	0	1	6	0.086
	Negative (4)	3	1	1	3		3	1	1	3		4	2	0	0
	Neutral (16)	4	2	12	35		10	4	6	19		14	6	2	12
	Positive (72)	63	28	9	27		62	27	10	31		67	27	5	29
	Very positive (169)	158	69	11	32		155	67	14	44		160	65	9	53
	The advisor’s willingness to share experiences and knowledge with you was:
	Very poor (6)	0	0	6	18	< 0.001	1	1	5	16	< 0.001	5	2	1	6	0.043
	Poor (4)	0	0	4	12		1	1	3	9		2	1	2	12
	Regular (24)	15	7	9	26		17	7	7	22		23	9	1	6
	Good (66)	58	25	8	23		56	24	10	31		62	25	4	23
	Excellent (162)	155	68	7	21		155	67	7	22		153	63	9	53
	How often did you receive feedback from your advisor?
	Never (8)	3	1	5	15	< 0.001	4	2	4	12	< 0.001	7	3	1	6	0.368
	Sporadically (49)	31	14	18	53		34	15	15	47		44	18	5	29
	Frequently (80)	75	33	5	15		72	31	8	25		75	31	5	29
	Continuously (125)	119	52	6	17		120	52	5	16		119	48	6	36
	The amount of time the advisor spent directly with you was:
	None (9)	3	1	6	18	< 0.001	4	2	5	16	< 0.001	7	3	2	12	0.015
	A little (31)	15	7	16	47		20	8	11	34		26	10	5	29
	Some (98)	91	40	7	20		87	38	11	34		95	39	3	18
	A lot (124)	119	52	5	15		119	52	5	16		117	48	7	41
Skills development	The scientific training you received during the stay was:
	Very poor (6)	0	0	6	18	< 0.001	0	0	6	19	< 0.001	5	2	1	6	0.002
	Poor (3)	1	1	2	6		1	1	2	6		2	1	1	6
	Regular (18)	9	4	9	26		5	2	13	41		13	5	5	29
	Good (97)	85	37	12	35		87	38	10	31		93	38	4	24
	Excellent (138)	133	58	5	15		137	59	1	3		132	54	6	35
	The research stay that you completed was:
	Useless (5)	0	0	5	15	< 0.001	0	0	5	16	< 0.001	5	2	0	0	0.001
	A bit useful (18)	8	3	10	29		5	2	13	41		12	5	6	35
	Useful (67)	54	24	13	38		55	24	12	37		63	26	4	24
	Very useful (172)	166	73	6	18		170	74	2	6		165	67	7	41
	The activities you did during the stay were:
	Not diverse (6)	0	0	6	18	< 0.001	1	1	5	16	< 0.001	6	2	0	0	0.007
	A bit diverse (47)	36	16	11	32		30	13	17	53		38	16	9	52
	Diverse (111)	98	43	13	38		104	45	7	22		107	44	4	24
	Very diverse (98)	94	41	4	12		95	41	3	9		94	38	4	24
	The contribution of the stay in your development was:
	Very poor (4)	0	0	4	12	< 0.001	0	0	4	12	< 0.001	3	1	1	6	< 0.001
	Poor (3)	2	1	1	3		0	0	3	9		1	1	2	12
	Regular (12)	2	1	10	29		0	0	12	38		7	3	5	29
	Good (81)	68	30	13	38		69	30	12	38		79	32	2	12
	Excellent (162)	156	68	6	18		161	70	1	3		155	63	7	41
Infrastructure and support	The guidance that you received from the graduate students was:
	I didn’t receive any guidance (42)	37	16	5	15	0.001	35	15	7	22	< 0.001	39	16	3	18	0.073
	Very poor (2)	0	0	2	6		0	0	2	6		1	1	1	6
	Poor (1)	1	1	0	0		1	1	0	0		1	1	0	0
	Regular (17)	11	5	6	18		10	4	7	22		14	5	3	18
	Good (64)	53	23	11	32		51	22	13	41		62	25	2	11
	Excellent (136)	126	55	10	29		133	58	3	9		128	52	8	47
	The guidance that you received from the laboratory technician was:
	I didn’t receive any guidance (91)	77	34	14	41	0.011	78	34	13	41	< 0.001	84	34	7	41	0.578
	Very poor (3)	2	1	1	3		3	1	0	0		3	1	0	0
	Poor (3)	2	1	1	3		1	1	2	6		3	1	0	0
	Regular (13)	11	5	2	6		10	4	3	9		11	5	2	11
	Good (60)	48	21	12	35		47	20	13	41		56	23	4	24
	Excellent (92)	88	38	4	12		91	40	1	3		88	36	4	24
	The facilities used during the research stay were:
	Very poor (1)	0	0	1	3	0.012	1	1	0	0	0.015	1	1	0	0	0.769
	Poor (4)	4	2	0	0		3	1	1	3		4	2	0	0
	Regular (18)	13	6	5	15		13	5	5	16		17	7	1	6
	Good (104)	87	38	17	50		87	38	17	53		99	40	5	29
	Excellent (135)	124	54	11	32		126	55	9	28		124	50	11	65
	The supplies that you had during the research stay were:
	I don’t know (9)	6	3	3	9	0.001	3	1	6	19	< 0.001	5	2	4	24	< 0.001
	Null (2)	0	0	2	6		1	1	1	3		2	1	0	0
	Insufficient (5)	3	1	2	6		4	2	1	3		4	2	1	6
	Sufficient (208)	183	80	25	73		187	81	21	66		201	82	7	41
	Excessive (38)	36	16	2	6		35	15	3	9		33	13	5	29
	The compatibility of the stay schedule with your studies was:
	Very poor (5)	3	1	2	6	< 0.001	3	2	2	6	< 0.001	3	1	2	12	0.011
	Poor (16)	14	6	2	6		12	5	4	13		13	5	3	18
	Regular (57)	42	19	15	44		42	18	15	47		54	22	3	18
	Good (82)	71	31	11	32		74	32	8	25		80	33	2	11
	Excellent (102)	98	43	4	12		99	43	3	9		95	39	7	41

*p value for Fisher’s exact test

Back to article page

ISSN: 1472-6920

Contact us

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

BMC Medical Education

Contact us