ArticleCureus2024
Professionalism Program Evaluation and Its Impact on Undergraduate Medical Students.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of professional course teaching behavior and self-reported professional competence in medical students: the effects of professional identity evaluation and campus environment satisfaction.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Assessment of professionalism in undergraduate and graduate medical education: a scoping review.BMC medical education · 2025Article
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
Objective The study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a professionalism program by conducting focus group discussions (FGDs). The research focuses on understanding how the program influences the development of professionalism skills among medical students, as well as their perceptions and experiences regarding the program. The study's objectives revolve around identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the program from the perspective of the students. Methods This was a qualitative study done after obtaining approval from the Institutional Review Committee, Islamic International Medical College. Students of 4th year Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS; 56 students) were selected for the study. A convenience sampling technique was used to select the participants for FGDs. Seven separate FGDs were conducted, with eight participants in each group. All the FGDs were audiotaped. Data were transcribed and translated. Data were analyzed using the thematic analysis on Atlas. Both obvious and hidden content were analyzed. Codes and themes were identified, which were then finalized with consensus. Codes were then categorized into sub-themes, and finally, themes were generated. Results Participants identified the problems associated with applying professionalism during FGDs. These challenges encompassed hefty workloads and a perceived disparity between theoretical knowledge and practical implementation. The students highlighted the importance of practical teaching methods, the cultivation of role models, the alignment of curriculum with real-world experiences, and the revision of assessment methods. This study analyzes the obstacles and potential advantages associated with professionalism education and presents significant perspectives on improving it for upcoming healthcare practitioners. Conclusion Professionalism is a crucial component, and each graduate of a medical school should be fully qualified as a professional after graduation. As we want our future doctors to be skilled at both professional qualities and diagnosis, it is crucial that medical institutions teach professionalism.
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.