ArticleBMC medical education2024
The perceived relevance, utility and retention of basic sciences in general practice.
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 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.
- Facilitators' perspectives on a pre-matriculation program in basic biomedical sciences for medical students: a qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Contextual Vertical Integration Optimizes the Cognitive Load Profile of Undergraduate Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology Learners: Evidence from the CONVINCED-OG Cluster-Randomized Crossover Trial.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBasic sciences are crucial for clinical medicine, yet studies focusing on their perceived utility among general practitioners (GPs) are sparse. Considering the broad scope of GPs' practice, an in-depth understanding of basic sciences is fundamental for making informed clinical decisions. This study evaluated GP registrars' retention and perceptions of the utility of basic sciences in clinical practice.
methodsUsing sequential explanatory mixed methods study design, knowledge retention was assessed by a multiple-choice question (MCQ) examination followed by interviews on the perception of the relevance and utility of basic sciences among GP registrars at James Cook University's (JCU) General Practice Training (GPT) program. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were conducted on the MCQ exam data, while thematic analysis was employed for the qualitative interview data.
resultsSixty-one GP registrars participated in the MCQ exam, while 11 of them were involved in the interviews. The highest mean score was obtained in biochemistry (75.1 ± 2.23) while the lowest mean score was in anatomy (56.07 ± 3.16). Key performance predictors included the formative clinical examination scores (β = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.2, p < 0.001) and gender (β = -9.7, 95% CI: -17 to -2.3, p = 0.011). The qualitative data analysis revealed five themes, including the backbone of clinical medicine, varying utility over time and by specialty, clinical synthesis integrates encapsulated knowledge, professional pressures hinder revisitation of knowledge and knowledge renewal enhances updates.
conclusionBasic sciences were considered relevant in clinical practice. Development of continuing professional development (CPDs) sessions and clinically relevant online resources were measures proposed to enhance the retention of knowledge. Future research could focus on innovative educational strategies for GPs.
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.