Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38707144›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Perceptions on Medical Professionalism Among Future Healthcare Professionals: A Mixed Method Study.

Vijaya Ramanathan, Punita Pushpanathan, Trupti Bodhare, Samir Bele

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Vijaya RamanathanAnatomy, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Madurai, IND.
Punita PushpanathanPhysiology, Meenakshi Medical College Hospital & Research Institute, Meenakshi Academy of Higher Education & Research (Deemed to be University), Kanchipuram, IND.
Trupti BodhareCommunity & Family Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Madurai, IND.
Samir BeleCommunity Medicine, Velammal Medical College Hospital & Research Institute, Madurai, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Accreditation councils across the world constantly examine policies and practices in professionalism in their medical curriculum. The National Medical Commission (NMC) in India has recognized the pressing need to reform and include professionalism in its undergraduate curriculum. Objectives The objective of this study was to explore the perspectives of medical and nursing students on professional behavior, suitable teaching-learning methods, and assessment strategies for curriculum integration. Methodology The study utilized a concurrent triangulation mixed method design, collecting both qualitative and quantitative data simultaneously to gain a comprehensive understanding of medical and nursing students' perceptions of professionalism. It included 83 final-year undergraduate medical students and 42 final-year undergraduate nursing students. The approval of the Institutional Review Board of Meenakshi Medical College Hospital & Research Institute was obtained. A semi-structured questionnaire consisting of demographic characteristics and opinions regarding academic professional behavior, teaching-learning, and evaluation of professionalism was used. Perceptions regarding the meaning of professionalism, behavior of professionalism to be emphasized in teaching, and pressing challenges of professionalism were explored. Students were also asked to rank the best behavior associated with professionalism. Frequency and percentages were used for descriptive statistics. Means and standard deviations were calculated for continuous variables. An unpaired t-test was used to determine a statistically significant difference between the means in the two groups. The quantitative data was analyzed with R programming and content analysis was performed for the qualitative data using ATLAS.ti qualitative data analysis software. Results Unexplained/unauthorized absence from academic activities (2.39 ± 1.553), not following the timeline (2.41 ± 1.560), making fun of patients and peers (2.16 ± 1.619), cheating in the exams (2.37 ± 1.651), and inebriation (2.39 ± 1.666) were unacceptable behaviors by undergraduate medical students compared with nursing students. Clinical experience (1.54 ± 0.857) and role models (1.74 ± 0.935) were the highly acceptable methods of teaching professionalism and interprofessional interactions (1.58 ± 0.650) and awards (1.98 ± 1.100) were the most common suggestions to improve the course curriculum by both groups. Community/field activity (1.78 ± 0.860) and clinical examination (1.89 ±1.123) were the most preferred methods of evaluation of professionalism. According to the students, dedication, honesty, respect, and self-improvement were identified as the best behaviors associated with professionalism. Conclusions The study revealed that students had a wide range of perspectives about professionalism. Different unprofessional acts were acceptable to students. The causes of these perspectives need to be explored and resolved to promote professionalism. Students identified the need for strong positive role models and frequent clinical experiences, along with improved interprofessional interactions and awards to improve teaching and learning professionalism. Community/field activity was the preferred assessment method proposed by the students. Medical institutions must promote these components in curriculum, faculty development, and clinical settings to foster the development of professionalism among students.

Indexed as

assessmentmedical professionalismmixed method studyprofessional behaviorteaching methodsundergraduate medical studentsundergraduate nursing students

Identifiers

PMID38707144
PMCPMC11069035

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.