ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development
Self-Assessment of Medical Ethics and Professionalism: Comparison Between Preclinical and Clinical Medical Students.
Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEthics and professionalism are fundamental elements in the practice of medicine consisting of a set of values, behaviors, and relationships that reinforce the trust and respect for the physician in a society. It consists of several key elements that are learnt during their formative years of study. This study aims to compare knowledge and self-reported practice of ethics and professionalism between preclinical and clinical undergraduate medical students.
methodsWe included 427 medical students including males and females of age 18 and above. They were further divided into preclinical and clinical groups. We assessed knowledge and practice of medical professionalism through a validated questionnaire containing 11 core elements (components) of medical professionalism and ethics. The assessment was carried out by comparing median scores assigned to the components of professionalism against each question. Data was analyzed through SPSS v.22 and GraphPad Prism v.8.
resultsClinical medical students had significantly higher knowledge of medical professionalism as compared to nonclinical students (
conclusionOur findings suggest that knowledge and practice of certain elements of ethics and professionalism are enhanced through clinical exposure, however, few remain consistent across different stages of study. Moreover, lack of significant differences in practice of professionalism based on ethnic differences underscores the potential universal standards in medical education.
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.