Skip to main content
Download PDF

Evaluating the educational environment among Saudi board dental residents at King Abdulaziz Medical City in Riyadh using PHEEM tool

BMC Medical Education volume 24, Article number: 1006 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The quality of education and the learning environment significantly influence dental trainees’ success and experiences. However, the impact of the educational environment on dental residents in Saudi Arabia remains unexplored. This study aimed to assess the educational environment among dental residents at King Abdulaziz Medical City (KAMC) using the Postgraduate Hospital Educational Environment Measure (PHEEM) instrument, shedding light on its influence and providing insights for improvement.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 85 dental residents from various specialties at King Abdulaziz Medical City in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, using the PHEEM instrument to evaluate the educational environment. Data analysis involved descriptive statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk test for score normality, and comparative analyses to explore the relationships between PHEEM scores and sociodemographic characteristics, specialties, residency years, and health habits.

Results

A total of 85 dental residents completed the survey. The majority of participants were aged 25 years and older (96.5%), female (56.5%), and single (78.8%). Most of the participating dental residents were Saudi board orthodontic residents (18.8%), and they were at the R2 level of training (32.9%). 88.2% were non-smokers, and 78.8% of them practiced physical activity. The PHEEM assessment revealed an overall score of 117.12 out of 160, with subscale scores of 41.54 out of 56 for role autonomy, 44.66 out of 60 for teaching, and 30.92 out of 44 for social support. Factors like age, marital status, and smoking were associated with lower scores, while being female and physically active were linked to higher scores. Notably, R3 residents had significantly lower scores than R1 residents (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

This study evaluated the educational environment in Saudi board dental programs at KAMC, revealing an overall positive atmosphere but highlighting the need for improvement in certain areas. Despite some limitations, this research represents a significant step toward assessing and enhancing the educational environment for dental residents in Saudi Arabia, ultimately ensuring a better learning environment for future dental professionals.

Peer Review reports

Background

Dental education in Saudi Arabia has witnessed significant development over the years to meet the growing demands in oral health care and to maintain high standards in dental education and practice. Dental schools are spread across different regions and have been remarkably increasing; currently there are 35 Dental Colleges offering undergraduate programs leading to Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) degree graduating [1]. These schools aim to graduating competent dentists by adopting dynamic curriculum, which offers university-based dental training, with quality education and research opportunities.

Graduated dentists pursue further training and advanced degrees to improve their level of expertise. The available postgraduate dental education programs allow them to either specialize in a specific area of dental practice or higher academic degrees. The Saudi Commission of Health Specialties offers various postgraduate residency and specialization programs in different dental specialties including family dentistry, orthodontics, restorative dentistry, prosthodontics, endodontics, periodontics, paediatric dentistry, oral medicine and pathology and oral and maxillofacial surgery [2]. These programs are offered in different basis [2]. There are 3-year long programs such as family dentistry, orthodontics, restorative dentistry, prosthodontics, endodontics, and paediatric dentistry [2]. Whereas other programs like periodontics and oral medicine and pathology are 4 years long, and oral and maxillofacial surgery is 5 years long [2].

Institutions offering postgraduate medical/ dental programs strive to provide high-quality education and training services by considering various factors that significantly influence the educational and training experience of postgraduate trainees [3, 4]. Among these factors, the learning environment, which plays a pivotal role in shaping the educational experience; and has been linked to academic achievement, perception, behaviour, and overall success [3, 4]. The learning environment is defined by the American Medical Association (AMA) as a social system including the learner (including the external relationships and other factors affecting the learner), the individuals with whom the learner interacts, the setting and purposes of the interaction, and the formal and informal rules/policies/norms governing the interaction [3]. Efforts have been devoted to developing the Postgraduate Hospital Educational Environment Measure questionnaire (PHEEM) [4, 5]. This tool can assess the quality of the learning environment and contribute valuable information for improvement and quality assurance.

The clinical environment and social support have been shown to influence the success, perceptions and learning outcomes of medical trainees and postgraduate medical students [6, 7]. Moreover, faculty support and mentorship, access to digital educational resources, positive learning cultures have been associated with trainees’ professional development, clinical and academic growth [8,9,10,11]. In postgraduate dental education, several studies assessed the residents’ perception of the learning environment [12,13,14]. These studies have revealed both positive and negative attitudes toward essential factors such as self-autonomy, social support, educational setting, and atmosphere. Therefore, acknowledging the effect of the learning environment is vital, as it can affect the quality and success of dental residency programs.

Health institutions should strive to continuously enhance the learning environment, as it greatly impacts the capability of the dental residents to achieve their training goals. The improvement can be achieved through addressing the weaknesses, accepting them, and planning to improve outcomes and support trainees.

To our knowledge, the educational environment among dental residents in Saudi Arabia has not yet been investigated. It is imperative to understand its effect for target improvements that enhance the quality of the training, educational services, and satisfaction levels. Our study aimed to assess the perception of the educational environment among dental residents at King Abdulaziz Medical City (KAMC) using PHEEM instrument. Shedding light on the impact of environmental measures on postgraduate dental education can provide insights and increase awareness to advance the learning experience of dental residents. Supervisors at KAMC can also consider utilising this information to maintain the positive factors and address areas of weaknesses.

Methods

Study design

This cross-sectional study was conducted using a survey approach. Dental residents from all dental specialities at King Abdulaziz Medical City in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia were recruited using a convenience sampling method between May 2023 and June 2023. The inclusion criteria were dental residents enrolled in Saudi board programs and actively undergoing training at King Abdulaziz Medical City, while exclusions comprised residents from other centres and those who had deferred their studies.

Sample size

Employing a 95% confidence interval, a 5% margin of error, and a 50% assumed response distribution, a minimum sample size of 79 participants was required.

Data source and data collection

To assess the educational environment of the residency program, the English version of the “Postgraduate Hospital Educational Environment Measure” (PHEEM) [14, 15], as presented in Appendix 1, was employed. PHEEM is a widely used instrument for assessing the postgraduate medical education learning environment [5, 15, 16] and it has demonstrated reliability and content validity in various countries, including Saudi Arabia [5, 13, 17,18,19,20,21,22]. This questionnaire, accessible for academic and research purposes [5, 13, 15, 17, 18], comprises 40 items divided into three subscales that address perceptions of role autonomy, teaching, and social support [15, 16]. Scoring is conducted using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree), with a maximum possible score of 160 [15, 17].

Information on socio-demographic factors (age, gender, marital status), specialty; Periodontics (SB-Perio), Orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics (SBO-DO), Oral Medicine and Pathology (SB-OMP), Endodontics (SBE), Pediatric Dentistry (SBPD), Restorative Dentistry (SBRD), Family Dentistry (SBFD), Prosthodontics (SB-Pros), and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (SB-OMS), residency year (R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5) and health habits (smoking status and physical activity) were included as part of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was organized into three sections:

The questionnaire included 3 sections:

Section A: Socio-demographic and health habits data.

Section B: Residency training program data.

Section C: 40-items Postgraduate Hospital Educational Environment Measure (PHEEM).

The administration of the questionnaire in English aligned with the expected language proficiency among dental residents due to the nature of their studies. Distribution of the questionnaires was primarily overseen by two designated authors who are dental residents at King Abdulaziz Medical City in Riyadh, where they handed out the questionnaires at appropriate instances. The questionnaire was distributed through an online questionnaire using Google forms. The two authors collected the complete questionnaires by handing each resident a device with the questionnaire through face-to-face interaction, ensuring prompt clarification of doubts if any arose. This ensured that data collection was completed in a time-efficient manner and enhanced data quality. 85 residents responded to the questionnaire between May 2023 and June 2023, with participation being entirely voluntary and anonymous. The time taken to complete the survey was approximately 3 min. Subscales were interpreted according to the practical guide using the PHEEM written by S.Roff et al. (2005) [5] (Table 1).

Table 1 Guide for interpretation of the PHEEM score (S. Roff et al., 2005) [5]
Full size table

Statistical analysis

Data were analysed using SPSS version 26 (IBM). Descriptive statistics presented categorical variables in frequencies and percentages, while means and standard deviations characterized continuous variables. The normality of scale scores was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test for continuous variables. Comparative statistical analyses were conducted to determine associations between PHEEM scores and socio-demographic characteristics, different specialties, residency years, and health habits. A significance level of P < 0.05 indicated statistical significance.

Ethical considerations

The study was ethically approved by the Institutional Review Board of King Saud University (No.23/0296/IRB) and the head of the research setting. Each participant was provided with an information sheet comprehensively describing the study, along with a consent form to confirm their willingness to participate. Participation in the study was entirely voluntary and conducted in an anonymous manner. To ensure participant confidentiality, a distinct code number was assigned to each individual exclusively for analysis.

Results

Table 2 Distribution of study characteristics among dental residents (N = 85)
Full size table

Table 2 shows the distribution of study characteristics among participated dental residents. A total of 85 dental residents completed the questionnaire. The majority of participants aged 25 years and older (96.5%, n = 82), female (56.5%, n = 48) and single (78.8%, n = 67). In regard to dental training, most of participated dental residents were Saudi board orthodontic residents (18.8%, n = 16) and at R2 level of training (32.9%, n = 28). Finally, 88.2% of participated dental residents were non-smoker (n = 75) and 78.8% of them practice physical activity (n = 67).

Table 3 Mean of each question in PHEEM, subscales total scores and cumulative overall scale scores (N = 85)
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Summary of PHEEM subscales mean scores (N = 85)

Full size image

Summary of the response for each question in PHEEM, subscales total scores and cumulative overall scale scores are summarized in Tables 3 and Fig. 1. In terms of perception of role autonomy, item 3 “I have the appropriate level of responsibility in this program” had the highest mean among other items (3.42 ± 0.64) while item 5 “There is an informative junior doctors’ handbook” was poorly rated (mean value of 2.16 ± 1.01). For perception of teaching, the item (Q14) regarding encouragement of dental resident to be an independent learner by clinical teacher was highly rated by participants with a mean of 3.24 ± 0.78, while participants poorly rated item (Q3) regarding having a good clinical supervision at all times (2.51 ± 1.23). In regard to perception of social support, item (Q6) “I feel physically safe within the hospital environment” had the highest mean score of (3.39 ± 0.64) and item (Q8) “There is adequate catering facilities when I am on call ” had the lowest mean score of (1.79 ± 1.07) among other items.

In regard to the cumulative total scores to identify the measures of the environment as overall, the mean overall score of the PHEEM out of 160 was 117.12 (Standard deviation [SD]: 20.26, range: 65–158) which indicates that the overall educational environment of the training center has more positives than negatives. The perception of role autonomy total score out of 56 was 41.54 (SD: 6.69, range: 24–56), which indicates more positive perception of one’s job role among the participants. The perception of teaching total score out of 60 was 44.66 (SD: 9.18, range: 17–60), which indicates that dental residents believed that the teachers are moving in the right direction in their training. Finally, the perception of social support total score out of 44 was 30.92 (SD: 5.98, range: 16–44), showing that the participants perceived more pros than cons in social support provided to them in the training centre (Table 3).

Table 4 Multiple linear regression between sociodemographic factors, dental training, health habits and PHEEM cumulative total score
Full size table

The crude associations between different factors (sociodemographic factors, dental training, and health habits) and PHEEM cumulative total score is shown in Table 4. In regard to sociodemographic factors and health habits, dental residents who were ≥ 25 years (ß: -7.83; 95%CI: -31.60, 15.95), married/divorced (ß: -5.80; 95%CI: -15.47, 3.86) and smokers (ß: -3.53; 95%CI: -17.16, 10.09) were associated with lower PHEEM cumulative total score compared to their counterparts. Dental residents who were females (ß: 0.93; 95%CI: -7.94, 9.79) and those who practice physical activity (ß: 2.55; 95%CI: -8.20, 13.30) were associated with higher PHEEM cumulative total score comparted to residents who were males and physically inactive. However, dental residents’ level of training was the only variable that showed statistically significant difference, as R3 dental residents (ß: -13.00; 95%CI: -24.24, -1.76) were significantly associated with lower PHEEM cumulative total score compared to R1 residents (p < 0.05).

Discussion

The Saudi board dental programs in KAMC have great exposure in terms of providing both hospital and university-based training, held in King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health sciences (KSAU-HS) [23]. Some faculty members from KSAU-HS supervise the residents during their clinical and didactic sessions, adding a different perspective to their learning experience [23]. Such setting can guarantee that residents have protected educational time, have more research exposure, and the ability to participate in educational events shared by the university [24]. It was found that residents who participated in research were more satisfied with their residency [25].

The aim of this study was to evaluate the educational environment at KAMC, and it is considered the first study utilizing PHEEM tool among dental residents in Saudi Arabia. The previous studies have used PHEEM tool predominantly with medical residents and interns [19,20,21,22, 26, 27]. The mean PHEEM score of the current study was 117.12/160, indicating that the educational environment has more positives than negatives, and this is aligned with other studies among medical residents in Saudi Arabia [19,20,21,22, 26, 27]. Most of the participants were SBO residents, and this is because this program in KAMC has the highest number of residents, with a total of 22. Unlike SB-OMP and SB-OMS, where they only have 5 residents.

With regard to PHEEM subscales, specifically perceptions of teaching, dental residents generally believed their teachers were moving in the right direction. However, having good clinical supervision at all times was poorly reported, similar to Saudi board family medicine residents in KSA [26, 27]. Clinical supervision is an integral part of the teaching process, and it involves sharing knowledge along with providing regular feedback to residents [28,29,30]. It supports residents towards their path of becoming independent reliable specialists and ensures that patients receive the required treatment with the best quality of care [28,29,30]. Barriers to effective clinical supervision can be lack of time, heavy workload, reduced number of staff, and lack of training [27,28,29,30,31]. For the perceptions of social support, having catering facilities when on call received the lowest score, similar to Saudi board urology residents [32].

Female dental residents had higher PHEEM cumulative total score. Unlike medical residents in King Fahad Hospital of Dammam University, where male residents had higher ranking of the educational environment than females [19]. There was a statistically significant difference among the level of training, as junior residents had higher overall PHEEM score than senior residents. This could be attributed to the fact that junior residents have better clinical supervision, additional educational activities, and receive more feedback than senior residents [33]. Moreover, senior dental residents have an added stress of finishing their clinical cases and preparing for their final board examination. This is in agreement with studies done in psychiatry and intensive care programs, where junior residents were more satisfied with the educational environment than senior residents [15, 18, 34]. A recent study evaluating the educational environment in KSAU-HS using DREEM tool also found that junior students perceived the educational environment better than seniors [35] In contrast, Khoja AT (2015) reported that senior family medicine residents in KSA had significantly higher overall PHEEM score [21]. Investigating the educational environment allows for the identification of areas of strength and weakness, giving dental residents a better environment to thrive.

Study limitations

While this study achieved its aim of evaluating the educational environment at KAMC and provided valuable insights, there are some limitations that need to be acknowledged. Firstly, some of the dental residency programs, such as SB-OMP, SB-OMS, SB-Perio, and SBFD, have a low number of residents, which limits the comparability of their educational experiences to larger programs like SBO-DO. Secondly, the use of the PHEEM tool, while pre-validated, employs a 5-point scale to assess the educational environment. This scale may not provide dental residents with the freedom to express specific areas in need of improvement, potentially leading to limitations in the depth of feedback obtained. Additionally, the findings are specific to the context of KAMC in Riyadh and may not be broadly generalizable or of immediate interest to an international audience. Despite these limitations, this study marks an important step in assessing and enhancing the educational environment for dental residents in Saudi Arabia and provides a foundation for future research to evaluate its relevance in other contexts.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study sheds light on the educational environment among dental residents at King Abdulaziz Medical City (KAMC) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The findings, based on the application of the Postgraduate Hospital Educational Environment Measure (PHEEM) tool, reveal an overall positive educational environment. These results indicate that KAMC provides a supportive learning environment for dental residents. Additionally, this study highlights specific areas that require attention and improvement, such as enhancing clinical supervision and addressing disparities in the satisfaction levels of residents at different training levels and between genders. While the study’s context-specific nature and limitations—such as the small number of residents in some programs and the constraints of the PHEEM tool—may limit the broader applicability of the findings, it offers valuable insights into the educational environment at KAMC. These insights can inform similar institutions with comparable cultural and educational contexts and provide a foundation for future research.

Looking forward, future research could build upon these findings by employing mixed methods, combining quantitative and qualitative approaches, to gain a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the educational environment. This approach would offer insights that could benefit similar institutions globally and contribute to enhancing the learning experience for dental professionals, ultimately ensuring an optimal learning environment for future dental professionals.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Tariq Mohammad RTA. Future of dentist profession. Saudi Arabia AJHMNP. 2020;5(3):1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Trainee. Saudi Commission for health specialties [Internet]. Trainee | Saudi Commission for Health Specialties. https://scfhs.org.sa/en/training?tid=30&dtid=All&title_op=contains&title_po_prog=.

  3. Grech M. The Effect of the Educational Environment on the rate of burnout among Postgraduate Medical trainees - A Narrative Literature Review. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2021;8:23821205211018700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Vieira JE. The postgraduate hospital educational environment measure (PHEEM) questionnaire identifies quality of instruction as a key factor predicting academic achievement. Clin (Sao Paulo). 2008;63(6):741–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Roff S, McAleer S, Skinner A. Development and validation of an instrument to measure the postgraduate clinical learning and teaching educational environment for hospital-based junior doctors in the UK. Med Teach. 2005;27(4):326–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Boor K, Scheele F, van der Vleuten CP, Scherpbier AJ, Teunissen PW, Sijtsma K. Psychometric properties of an instrument to measure the clinical learning environment. Med Educ. 2007;41(1):92–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Khan JS. Evaluation of the educational environment of postgraduate surgical teaching. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2008;20(3):104–7.

    Google Scholar 

  8. McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Cohen ER, Barsuk JH, Wayne DB. Does simulation-based medical education with deliberate practice yield better results than traditional clinical education? A meta-analytic comparative review of the evidence. Acad Med. 2011;86(6):706–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sawatsky AP, Ratelle JT, Bonnes SL, Egginton JS, Beckman TJ. Faculty Support for Self-Directed Learning in Internal Medicine Residency: a qualitative study using grounded theory. Acad Med. 2018;93(6):943–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lases LSS, Arah OA, Busch ORC, Heineman MJ, Lombarts K. Learning climate positively influences residents’ work-related well-being. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2019;24(2):317–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kumar PM, Gottumukkala S, Ramesh KSV, Bharath TS, Penmetsa GS, Kumar CN. Effect of e-learning methods on Dental education: an observational study. J Educ Health Promot. 2020;9:235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Olusanya AA, Babarinde TO, Aladelusi TO, Akinmoladun VI, Arotiba JT. Dental residents’ perception of learning environment: experience of a Nigerian training institution. Ann Ib Postgrad Med. 2019;17(2):145–52.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Taguchi N, Ogawa T, Sasahara H. Japanese dental trainees’ perceptions of educational environment in postgraduate training. Med Teach. 2008;30(7):e189–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Zahra Salari1 AH. Amin Tahmasbi2, Raziyeh Shojayeepour1, Fatemeh Jahanimoghadam3*. Evaluation of the clinical learning environment (CLE) using the Postgraduate Hospital Educational Environment measure (PHEEM) in viewpoint of Dental residents: a Multicenter Study in Iran. SDME. 2023;20(1):66–74.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chan CYW, Sum MY, Lim WS, Chew NWM, Samarasekera DD, Sim K. Adoption and correlates of Postgraduate Hospital Educational Environment measure (PHEEM) in the evaluation of learning environments–a systematic review. Med Teach. 2016;38(12):1248–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Soemantri D, Herrera C, Riquelme A. Measuring the educational environment in health professions studies: a systematic review. Med Teach. 2010;32(12):947–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pinnock R, Reed P, Wright M. The learning environment of paediatric trainees in New Zealand. J Paediatr Child Health. 2009;45(9):529–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Clapham M, Wall D, Batchelor A. Educational environment in intensive care medicine—use of Postgraduate Hospital Educational Environment measure (PHEEM). Med Teach. 2007;29(6):e184–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Al-Marshad S, Alotaibi G. Evaluation of clinical educational environment at King Fahad Hospital of Dammam University using the Postgraduate Hospital Education Environment measure (PHEEM) inventory. Educ Med J 2011;3(2).

  20. BuAli WH, Khan AS, Al-Qahtani MH. Evaluation of hospital-learning environment for pediatric residency in eastern region of Saudi Arabia. J educ eval Health prof. 2015;12.

  21. Khoja AT. Evaluation of the educational environment of the Saudi family medicine residency training program. JFCM. 2015;22(1):49.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mohammed BMA, Ahmed WAM. Evaluation of nurse interns’ satisfaction and hospital as an educational environment in nursing internship training program, Saudi Arabia. Saudi J Health Sci. 2020;9(1):22–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Academic [Internet]. [cited 2024 Aug 28]. https://www.ksau-hs.edu.sa/English/FutureStudent/Academic/Pages/Residency-Programs.aspx

  24. Hoffman RL, Morris JB, Kelz RR. Surgical residency training at a university-based academic medical center. Surg Clin. 2016;96(1):59–70.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Takahashi O, Ohde S, Jacobs JL, Tokuda Y, Omata F, Fukui T. Residents’ experience of scholarly activities is associated with higher satisfaction with residency training. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24:716–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Al Helal AH, Al Turki Y. Family medicine residents’ educational environment and satisfaction of training program in Riyadh. J Family Med Prim Care. 2019;8(4):1330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Abdulrahman KAB, Al-Dakheel A, Khalid D, Abdulrahman A. Family medicine residency program in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: residents opinion. Pak J Med Sci. 2006;22(3):250–7.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kilminster S, Cottrell D, Grant J, Jolly B. AMEE Guide 27: effective educational and clinical supervision. Med Teach. 2007;29(1):2–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Rothwell C, Kehoe A, Farook SF, Illing J. Enablers and barriers to effective clinical supervision in the workplace: a rapid evidence review. BMJ open. 2021;11(9):e052929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Dilworth S, Higgins I, Parker V, Kelly B, Turner J. Finding a way forward: a literature review on the current debates around clinical supervision. Contemp Nurse. 2013;45(1):22–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Perron NJ, Sommer J, Hudelson P, Demaurex F, Luthy C, Louis-Simonet M, et al. Clinical supervisors’ perceived needs for teaching communication skills in clinical practice. Med Teach. 2009;31(7):e316–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Binsaleh S, Babaeer A, Alkhayal A, Madbouly K. Evaluation of the learning environment of urology residency training using the postgraduate hospital educational environment measure inventory. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2015:271–7.

  33. Gough J, Bullen M, Donath S. PHEEM ‘downunder’. Med Teach. 2010;32(2):161–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mahendran R, Broekman B, Wong JCM, Lai YM, Kua EH. The educational environment: comparisons of the British and American postgraduate psychiatry training programmes in an Asian setting. Med Teach. 2013;35(11):959–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Awawdeh M, Alosail LA, Alqahtani M, Almotairi A, Almikhem RN, Alahmadi RA, Aldughaither AA, Alamoud KA. Students’ perception of the educational environment at King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for health sciences using DREEM tool. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1):42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dental Health, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

    Maram Ali M. Alwadi & Deema Abdullah Alroweilly

  2. Department of Periodontics, KAMC, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

    Lama Ahmed Alosail & Alanoud Musaad AlJubair

  3. Department of Periodontics and Community Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

    Arwa Ameen Talakey

Authors
  1. Maram Ali M. Alwadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lama Ahmed Alosail
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Deema Abdullah Alroweilly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alanoud Musaad AlJubair
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Arwa Ameen Talakey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Authorship: M.A.A., L.A.A., and A.A.T., made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the study. D.A.A. reviewed relevant academic literature. L.A.A. and A.M.A. were involved in data acquisition. A.A.T. conducted the analysis and interpretation of data. L.A.A. and A.M.A. wrote the discussion section, while M.A.A. wrote the conclusion and abstract section. M.A.A., L.A.A., D.A.A., A.A.T. and A.M.A. were involved in drafting the manuscript. M.A.A. and L.A.A. were responsible for revising the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maram Ali M. Alwadi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Permission to conduct the study was obtained from the Ethics Committee and the Institutional Review Board of King Saud University (No.23/0296/IRB) and the head of the research setting. Participants were informed about the research objectives. Confidentiality of their information was ensured and all participants provided written informed consent. They were also informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any point.

Consent for publication

Not applicable in this section.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alwadi, M.A.M., Alosail, L.A., Alroweilly, D.A. et al. Evaluating the educational environment among Saudi board dental residents at King Abdulaziz Medical City in Riyadh using PHEEM tool. BMC Med Educ 24, 1006 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06001-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06001-0

Keywords

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

Contact us