ArticleBMJ open2018
Students' satisfaction and perceived impact on knowledge, attitudes and skills after a 2-day course in scientific writing: a prospective longitudinal study in Spain.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Building research capacity in the global south: insights from a scientific writing workshop.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- A Survey of the Course: 'How to Successfully Write a Scientific Article in Pediatric Settings'.Current pediatric reviews · 2025Article
- Pedagogic Strategies and Contents in Medical Writing/Publishing Education: A Comprehensive Systematic Survey.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2024Review
- Writing Accountability Groups Are a Tool for Academic Success: The Obesity Health Disparities PRIDE Program.Ethnicity & disease · 2020Article
- Impact of Performing Medical Writing/Publishing Workshops: A Systematic Survey and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to determine students' satisfaction with a 2-day course on scientific writing in health sciences and to assess their perceptions of the long-term impact on their knowledge, attitudes and skills.
setting27 iterations of a 2-day course on writing and publishing scientific articles in health sciences.
participants741 students attending the 27 courses.
designProspective longitudinal study. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Immediately after each course, students completed a first questionnaire, rating their satisfaction with different aspects of the classroom sessions on a Likert scale (0-5). Approximately 2 years after the course, students completed a follow-up questionnaire, using a Likert scale (0-4) to rate their knowledge, skills and attitudes in relation to scientific writing before and after attending the course.
results741 students (70% women) participated in the 27 iterations of the course; 568 (76.8%) completed the first questionnaire and 182 (24.6%) completed the follow-up questionnaire. The first questionnaire reflected high overall satisfaction (mean score, 4.6). In the second questionnaire, students reported that the course had improved their knowledge (mean improvement: 1.6; 95% CI 1.6 to 1.7), attitudes (mean improvement: 1.3; 95% CI 1.2 to 1.4) and skills (mean improvement: 1.4; 95% CI 1.3 to 1.4) related to writing and publishing scientific papers. Most respondents (n=145, 79.7%) had participated in drafting a scientific paper after the course; in this subgroup, all the specific writing skills assessed in the second questionnaire significantly improved.
conclusionsStudents were satisfied with the format and the contents of the course, and those who responded to the follow-up survey considered that the course had improved their knowledge, attitudes and skills in relation to scientific writing and publishing. Courses are particularly important in countries without strong traditions in scientific publication.
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.