Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37089217›Full record

ArticleJournal of microbiology & biology education2023

COVID-19 Scientific Literacy in Medical and Nursing Students.

Maria Cabreja-Castillo, Leislany Hernandez, Alicia Mustafa, Gregory Hungria, Maria T Bertoli

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of microbiology & biology education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Maria Cabreja-CastilloKeralty Research Center, Keralty Hospital Miami, Miami, Florida, USA.
Leislany HernandezFamily Medicine Residency Program, Keralty Hospital Miami, Miami, Florida, USA.
Alicia MustafaKeralty Research Center, Keralty Hospital Miami, Miami, Florida, USA.
Gregory HungriaKeralty Research Center, Keralty Hospital Miami, Miami, Florida, USA.
Maria T BertoliKeralty Research Center, Keralty Hospital Miami, Miami, Florida, USA.
University of Miami Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The pandemic brought a whole newfound collection of words into our everyday language, some of which had been terms that were infrequently used outside academic and medical settings. However, as familiar as this new pandemic vocabulary has become, there are still several terms that often get mixed in everyday conversations, media communications, and even in the medical field. Some of these terms are often mistaken, which may lead to issues in the understanding of important concepts. Science communication, as a facet of scientific literacy, intends to educate people in an easy-to-understand manner, and this communication is even more important in health care, when a literate patient's medical decisions depend frequently on this process. In this article, we explore the use and misuse of some of the most common terms utilized during the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic by nursing and medical students, i.e., future health care professionals, in the hospital environment. This single-center hospital-based cross-sectional study, performed throughout September 2022, included 30 medical and nursing students. All participants completed a self-administered 15-item anonymous questionnaire at a single time point. Nine multiple-choice questions evaluated knowledge, diagnosis, disease manifestations, and vaccines related to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. Six questions provided demographics and quality assessment information. The analysis of the answers indicated that for at least 75% of the population surveyed, COVID-19 literacy was better for terms related to technology and actions (3/5 questions answered correctly) than for terms related to the disease (1/4 questions answered correctly). The overall median score for questions 1 to 9 was 4.5 of 9 points in total. Based on the results, the language used in the questionnaire was considered easy to understand, with an easy to medium level of complexity, and the perceived time required to complete the questionnaire was less than 5 min. In conclusion, our results showed that efforts need to be made in continuous professional education to increase the knowledge in COVID-19 literacy in the health care environment for medical and nursing students. Larger studies are recommended to identify and to fulfill the challenges that COVID-19 brought to medical and nursing education.

Indexed as

COVID-19infodemicmedical studentsnursing studentsscientific literacysurvey

Identifiers

PMID37089217
PMCPMC10117070
OpenAlexW4327582763

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.