ArticleSultan Qaboos University medical journal2016
Understanding Preclerkship Medical Students' Poor Performance in Prescription Writing.
Article in Sultan Qaboos University medical journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Exploring Absenteeism in Medical Education: Perceptions of Students and Professors at the University of Granada.Medical science educator · 2025Article
- Implementation and evaluation of an interprofessional prescription writing workshop with a simulated electronic prescribing activity for preclerkship medical students.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- The short- and long-term effects of a course on rational drug use: A comparative study between prefinal- and final-year undergraduate medical students who attended the course in different clinical years.Journal of education and health promotion · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to explore reasons for poor performance in prescription writing stations of the objective structured practical examination (OSPE) and absenteeism in prescription writing sessions among preclerkship medical students at the Arabian Gulf University (AGU) in Manama, Bahrain.
methodsThis descriptive study was carried out between September 2014 and June 2015 among 157 preclerkship medical students at AGU. Data were collected using focus group discussions and a questionnaire with closed- and open-ended items.
resultsAll 157 students participated in the study (response rate: 100.0%). The most frequently cited reasons for poor performance in OSPE stations were an inability to select the correct drugs (79.6%), treatment duration (69.4%), drug quantity (69.4%) and drug formulation (68.2%). Additionally, students reported inadequate time for completing the stations (68.8%). During focus group discussions, students reported other reasons for poor performance, including examination stress and the difficulty of the stations. Absenteeism was attributed to the length of each session (55.4%), lack of interest (50.3%), reliance on peers for information (48.4%) and optional attendance policies (47.1%). Repetitive material, large group sessions, unmet student expectations and the proximity of the sessions to summative examinations were also indicated to contribute to absenteeism according to open-ended responses or focus group discussions.
conclusionThis study suggests that AGU medical students perform poorly in prescription writing OSPE stations because of inadequate clinical pharmacology knowledge. Participation in prescription writing sessions needs to be enhanced by addressing the concerns identified in this study. Strategies to improve attendance and performance should take into account the learner-teacher relationship.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.