Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33730091›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Medical students' perceptions and motivations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Patricia Tempski, Fernanda M Arantes-Costa, Renata Kobayasi, Marina A M Siqueira, Matheus B Torsani, Bianca Q R C Amaro, Maria Eduarda F M Nascimento, Saulo L Siqueira, Itamar S Santos, Milton A Martins

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
27.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 109 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Patricia TempskiCentro de Desenvolvimento de Educação Médica e Departamento de Clínica Médica, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Fernanda M Arantes-CostaCentro de Desenvolvimento de Educação Médica e Departamento de Clínica Médica, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Renata KobayasiCentro de Desenvolvimento de Educação Médica e Departamento de Clínica Médica, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Marina A M SiqueiraCentro de Desenvolvimento de Educação Médica e Departamento de Clínica Médica, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Matheus B TorsaniCentro de Desenvolvimento de Educação Médica e Departamento de Clínica Médica, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Bianca Q R C AmaroCentro de Desenvolvimento de Educação Médica e Departamento de Clínica Médica, Universidade Federal de Roraima, Boa Vista, Brazil.
Maria Eduarda F M NascimentoCentro de Desenvolvimento de Educação Médica e Departamento de Clínica Médica, Universidade de Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil.
Saulo L SiqueiraCentro de Desenvolvimento de Educação Médica e Departamento de Clínica Médica, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Itamar S SantosCentro de Desenvolvimento de Educação Médica e Departamento de Clínica Médica, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-3212-8466
Milton A MartinsCentro de Desenvolvimento de Educação Médica e Departamento de Clínica Médica, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-9690-9371
Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo · BRUniversidade de Pernambuco · BRUniversidade Federal de Roraima · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere has been a rapid increase in the number of cases of COVID-19 in Latin America, Africa, Asia and many countries that have an insufficient number of physicians and other health care personnel, and the need for the inclusion of medical students on health teams is a very important issue. It has been recommended that medical students work as volunteers, undergo appropriate training, not undertake any activity beyond their level of competence, and receive continuous supervision and adequate personal protective equipment. However, the motivation of medical students must be evaluated to make volunteering a more evidence-based initiative. The aim of our study was to evaluate the motivation of medical students to be part of health teams to aid in the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS AND

findingsWe developed a questionnaire specifically to evaluate medical students' perceptions about participating in the care of patients with suspected infection with coronavirus during the COVID-19 pandemic. The questionnaire had two parts: a) one part with questions on individual characteristics, year in medical school and geographic location of the medical school and b) a second part with twenty-eight statements assessed on a 5-point Likert scale (totally agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree and totally disagree). To develop the questionnaire, we performed consensus meetings with a group of faculty and medical students. The questionnaire was sent to student organizations of 257 medical schools in Brazil and answered by 10,433 students. We used multinomial logistic regression models to analyze the data. Statements associated with greater odds ratios for participation of medical students in the COVID-19 pandemic were related to a sense of purpose or duty ("It is the duty of the medical student to put himself or herself at the service of the population in the pandemic"), altruism ("I am willing to take risks by participating in practice in the context of the pandemic"), and perception of good performance and professional identity ("I will be a better health professional for having experienced the pandemic"). Males were more prone than females to believe that only interns should participate in the care of patients with COVID-19 (odds ratio 1.36 [coefficient interval 95%:1.24-1.49]) and that all students should participate (OR 1.68 [CI:1.4-1.91]).

conclusionsMedical students are more motivated by a sense of purpose or duty, altruism, perception of good performance and values of professionalism than by their interest in learning. These results have implications for the development of volunteering programs and the design of health force policies in the present pandemic and in future health emergencies.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelCOVID-19FemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMotivationPandemicsPerceptionSARS-CoV-2Schools, MedicalStudents, MedicalSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID33730091
PMCPMC7968644
OpenAlexW3137138898

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.