ArticleJournal of education and health promotion2022
The impact of sensitizing 1
Article in Journal of education and health promotion, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strengthening Exposure to Mental Health and Psychiatry for Medical Undergraduates Through a Combined Well-being and Research Engagement Initiative.Indian journal of psychological medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluating a research methodology workshop among postgraduate students using Kirkpatrick's model.Journal of education and health promotion · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResearch is a core essential component of evidence-based medicine. The current study was undertaken to sensitize the undergraduate medical students the concept of biomedical research to sharpen their clinical skills. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis educational interventional study was done with a systemic random sample of 120 medical students in a tertiary care hospital. A workshop on biomedical research was conducted by the institutional ethics and medical education committee members followed by group activity regarding how to write the protocol of a research study. The protocols were then assessed using prestructured checklist by facilitators and feedback from the students and facilitators were assessed using student
resultsThe pretest (5.86 ± 1.75) scores and posttest scores (11.82 ± 2.47) of multiple choice questions and open-ended questions showed statistically significant difference. The feedback of students showed that 49.48% of students strongly agreed that contents discussed in the workshop were adequate, 61.85% agreed about better understanding of the topics of the workshop, 60.80% agreed that their queries and doubts are cleared, 53.6% agreed that the workshop motivates them to do research, and 44.3% agreed that they will attend the similar workshops in future. The protocols submitted by groups of students using the checklist showed 26%-80% scores.
conclusionThe student's knowledge on research methodology was significantly improved and teaching basic research methods to medical students at an early stage motivates the student to do research.
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.