Skip to main content

Table 5 Logistic regression analysis of research misconduct (n = 6200)

From: Knowledge, attitudes and practices about research misconduct among medical residents in southwest China: a cross-sectional study

Characteristics

Research misconduct

OR(95%CI)

P-value

No (%)

n = 2869

Yes (%)

n = 3331

Residency year

    

1

593(20.7)

942(28.3)

1.000

-

2

1910(66.6)

2237(67.2)

1.137(0.954–1.354)

0.151

3

366(12.8)

152(4.6)

0.809(0.712–1.126)

0.192

Educational status

    

Undergraduate or below

2233(77.8)

1501(45.1)

1.000

-

Postgraduate or above

636(22.2)

1830(54.9)

2.457(2.076–2.909)

< 0.01

Serving as a primary investigator for a research project

    

No

1434(50.0)

2437(73.2)

1.000

-

Yes

1435(50.0)

894(26.8)

0.600(0.510–0.715)

< 0.01

Publishing papers as the first author or corresponding author

    

No

2184(76.1)

1646(49.4)

1.000

-

Yes

685(23.9)

1685(50.6)

4.271(3.641–5.009)

< 0.01

Attending a course on research integrity

    

No

495(17.3)

219(6.6)

1.000

-

Yes

2374(82.7)

3112(93.4)

4.242(3.226–5.579)

< 0.01

Grouped by self-reported knowledge regarding research integrity

    

High

2163(75.4)

1250(37.5)

1.000

-

Low

706(24.6)

2081(62.5)

2.374(1.937–2.908)

< 0.01

Grouped by perceived consequences for research misconduct

    

High

2707(94.4)

1162(34.9)

1.000

-

Low

162(5.6)

2169(65.1)

20.411(16.325–25.52)

< 0.01