ArticleBMC medical education2024
Development of an index system for the scientific literacy of medical staff: a modified Delphi study in China.
Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Determinants and configurational pathways of healthcare big data asset valuation:an analysis using the TOE framework and fsQCA.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Building a tool to assess malaria surveillance and response capacity in malaria post-elimination contexts: a modified and dual-weighted Delphi approach.Infectious diseases of poverty · 2025Article
- Academic competition-based learning cultivates scientific literacy to promote professional competitiveness in medical undergraduates.Frontiers in public health · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundScientific research activity in hospitals is important for promoting the development of clinical medicine, and the scientific literacy of medical staff plays an important role in improving the quality and competitiveness of hospital research. To date, no index system applicable to the scientific literacy of medical staff in China has been developed that can effectively evaluate and guide scientific literacy. This study aimed to establish an index system for the scientific literacy of medical staff in China and provide a reference for improving the evaluation of this system.
methodsIn this study, a preliminary indicator pool for the scientific literacy of medical staff was constructed through the nominal group technique (n = 16) with medical staff. Then, two rounds of Delphi expert consultation surveys (n = 20) were conducted with clinicians, and the indicators were screened, revised and supplemented using the boundary value method and expert opinions. Next, the hierarchical analysis method was utilized to determine the weights of the indicators and ultimately establish a scientific literacy indicator system for medical staff.
resultsFollowing expert opinion, the index system for the scientific literacy of medical staff featuring 2 first-level indicators, 9 second-level indicators, and 38 third-level indicators was ultimately established, and the weights of the indicators were calculated. The two first-level indicators were research literacy and research ability, and the second-level indicators were research attitude (0.375), ability to identify problems (0.2038), basic literacy (0.1250), ability to implement projects (0.0843), research output capacity (0.0747), professional capacity (0.0735), data-processing capacity (0.0239), thesis-writing skills (0.0217), and ability to use literature (0.0181).
conclusionsThis study constructed a comprehensive scientific literacy index system that can assess medical staff's scientific literacy and serve as a reference for evaluating and improving their scientific literacy.
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.