ArticleThe European journal of general practice2019
At what stage in the undergraduate curriculum is it best to train in family medicine? A study from two medical schools in Spain.
Article in The European journal of general practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Medical students' perception of general practice: a cross-sectional survey.BMC medical education · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA course in family medicine (FM) could dispel the possibility of negative stereotyping about this speciality, and instil in students a greater interest. However, when is it preferable: at the beginning or at the end of undergraduate training?
objectivesTo determine changes in knowledge and attitudes towards FM by medical students completing a course in primary care at the beginning or the end of the undergraduate training and whether those changes anticipate the choice of speciality.
methodsStudents from Albacete and Seville medical schools (primary care course in second and sixth years, respectively) were asked to respond to the 'valuation of attitudes towards and knowledge of family medicine questionnaire' (CAMF). Students from Albacete answered before and after the course, and in Seville second-year students answered at the end of the first trimester. All students were invited to respond again at the end of their undergraduate training. Afterwards, we investigated the score on the speciality exam (order for the election from highest to lowest score) and their choice of speciality. The outcome measures were the MIR exam score, the number in the ranking, the chosen speciality and the result of the CAMF.
resultsIn Albacete 88 and 64 and in Seville 50 and 98 students responded in their second and sixth years, respectively. In Albacete, mean CAMF scores were 15.4, 22.7 before and after the course, and 21.8 at the end while in Seville, 13.9 in the second year, and 23.5 in the sixth year. Logistic regression analysis showed an association of the choice of FM only with the score on the speciality exam (OR: 0.667; 95%CI: 0.553-0.806).
conclusionThere were no significant differences between CAMF scores at the end of undergraduate training. Only the score on the speciality exam predicts FM choice: the higher the score, the lower the probability of choosing FM.
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.