Table 3 Summary of dental basic research education outcomes of included literatures
From: The picture of undergraduate dental basic research education: a scoping review
Publication | Dental Basic Research Education outcome | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Basic research question discovery ability | Literature retrieval ability | Research design capability | Experimental techniques | Scientific report writing ability | Promoting scientific interest | Other aspects | |
Scott, 2008 [27] | / | / | / | / | / | 1. The number of participants increased from 1 (1980) to 11 (2005). 2. 14% of graduates remained as faculty members, 31.5% of graduates continued pursuing higher education positions. | 1. The mean GPA was 3.42 and 3.14 for participants and non-participants. 2. Five valedictorians were members of the BSc Dent program for their overall outstanding performance. |
Grossman, 2009 [18] | / | / | / | / | / | 1. 44% of interviewees were satisfied with the research experience. 2. 92% thought research was important. 3. 34% agreed they would do research in the future. | In three out of four surveyed schools, over half of the students were unlikely to do research in the future. |
Guven, 2011 [11] | The funded project number increased from 16 (1993) to 25 (2008). | 1. Club members strongly agreed that they learned literature retrieval. 2. They agreed they had a reflection on scientific progress. | 1. The funded project increased from 16 (1993) to 25 (2008) 2. Participants had independent inquiry skills. | Club members agreed that they had laboratory experience. | Club members strongly agreed that they developed the ability of data presentation and analysis. | 1. Club members strongly agreed they were willing to do postgraduate research. 2. 74 SRC members continued studying at Istanbul University in the last 5 years. 3. 31% of teaching assistants were former club members. | 1. Students had higher GPA after joining the club (3.22 ± 0.33 V.S. 2.90 ± 0.36). 2. Members had a higher GPA than non-members (3.05 ± 0.44 V.S. 2.55 ± 0.42). |
Jeelani, 2014 [14] | 59.2% of medical and dental students knew how to design and complete a study. | / | / | / | 1. 46.7% of students knew how to write articles. 2. 17.7% of students knew the procedure of publication. | 68.7% of surveyed medical and dental students had participated in the research. | / |
Ping, 2015 [15] | / | / | / | / | / | 1. 54% of surveyed dental students had participated in the research. 2. 73% of surveyed students were interested in research, but senior one had less research interest. | Half of the non-participants admitted that they had no interest in scientific research. |
Habib, 2018 [29] | / | / | / | / | / | The survey showed that students had mediocre attitude toward scientific research. | / |
Nieminen, 2020 [17] | / | 80% of students had good or passable literature retrieval skills. | / | / | / | / | / |
Otuyemi, 2020 [22] | 45.2% of interviewees chose the research project topic individually whilst 20.4% were changed by supervisors. | / | / | / | / | 1. Almost half of the students were satisfied with the final topic. 2. 26.6% of students gained confidence in research after the research project. | / |
Yu, 2020 [23] | 1. The basic research projects per year increased from 2 (2007) to 7 (2017). 2. The multidisciplinary project’s rate increased from 0 (2007) to 33.3% (2017). | / | The number of students per funded project decreased from 6.25 (2007) to 3.33 (2017). | Students strongly agreed they obtained experimental skills (4.00 ± 0.80). | The participants published more articles (1.62 ± 1.41 V.S. 1.31 ± 0.75 ) during the post-graduate period (P = 0.025). | 1. The attendance rate of the research program increased from 36.84 to 90% 2. Students showed a certain satisfaction level (VASa score = 72.36 ± 20.37). | 1. Participants had a higher GPA than non-participants (3.41 ± 0.02 V.S. 3.21 ± 0.04, P < 0.001) . 2. Participants won more honor rolls per student (0.53 ± 0.07 V.S. 0.30 ± 0.06, P < 0.05). |
Scott and de Vries, 2008 [13] | / | / | / | / | Some students won prizes in research competitions. | / | / |
Kyaw, 2018 [21] | / | 51.2% of students believed they can appraise literature to a certain degree. | / | / | / | 83.3% of interviewed medical and dental students had moderate attitudes toward scientific research. | / |
Costa-Silva, 2018 [16] | / | / | 1. Experiment group had higher course scores. 2. Most groups chose the correct test cell and protocol. | Participants had more content of methodology, concepts, and literature support on the experimental report. | / | / | |
Franzen, 2014 [20] | / | / | Students used various research methods, like quantitative, laboratory, and review methods. | / | / | / | / |