ArticleHealth science reports2025
Choosing the Path: Insights Into Zambian Medical Students' Specialty Selections.
Article in Health science reports, 2025. 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
Background: The specialization of medical students is essential for enhancing healthcare quality, and meeting the diverse needs of patients, with medical training programs significantly influencing their career trajectories and expertise development. This study aimed to investigate the future specialty preferences of medical students from various medical schools in Zambia. Materials and Methods: The study included participants from seven medical schools who had completed at least their first clinical clerkship. Data collection involved distributing structured questionnaires containing Likert scale items and open-ended questions via an online Google Sheets platform. Data collected included: demographics, name of medical school, year of study, specialty preferences, factors influencing specialty preferences, awareness about medical specialties, and career pathways. Results: A study involving 127 medical students in clinical clerkships revealed a gender ratio of 1.1:1 male to female, with 73% aged between 20 and 25 years. Specialty preferences varied, with internal medicine (12%) and cardiovascular surgery (10%) being popular choices, and 62% changing their preferences during clerkships. Key factors influencing specialty choice were personal interest (74%), work-life balance (41%), and career prospects (30%). Only 21% were very familiar with medical specialties, and 83% rated mentorship availability poorly and suggested organizing workshops to enhance awareness. Future plans included further specialization (54%), international humanitarian work (54%), and medical academics (27%). Conclusion: Despite recognizing the importance of mentorship, students rated the availability of mentorship and informational resources as inadequate. The findings emphasize the need for enhanced mentorship programs, comprehensive career guidance, and targeted informational workshops to support informed specialty choices, contributing to a better-prepared and more satisfied medical workforce.
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.