ArticleBMC medical education2025
Imparting the core competencies of a scientific scholar through a week-long focused course: a pre-post study in Swiss undergraduate medical students.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCompetency-based education is the prevailing standard in most medical schools. The ‘scholar’ is one of seven roles proposed by CanMeds. Its competencies are the basis for evidence-based medicine (EBM) and the translation of scientific evidence into practice. However, it is often underrepresented in medical curricula, and it faces challenges from societal discourse. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a new week-long Biomedical Research Module for second-year medical students.
methodsBased on the Translational Research Model and by using different didactic tools, the module was developed at the Medical Faculty of the University of Zurich in German-speaking Switzerland to enable students to participate in generating and translating scientific medical knowledge, independently evaluate the quality of research, and adopt a scientific attitude toward knowledge creation following the 5 A-cycle of EBM. A 14-item self-assessment rating questionnaire was developed reflecting the learning goals (plus four items on career planning) and completed by two independent student cohorts in 2023 and 2024. Using a repeated one-group pretest-posttest design, changes in students’ competencies and attitudes were analysed by inferential statistical methods.
resultsData from 303 to 350 students were analysed. Changes between baseline and module completion were robust. The participants’ understanding of the principles of the process of medical knowledge generation and their competency to participate in it, their competency to independently evaluate the quality of research, and their competency to handle uncertainties in medical knowledge increased strongly (Cohen’s threshold, p < 0.01). While students’ perception of the importance of the basic principles of EBM was already at a high level at baseline, improvements in their scientific attitude were modest, and science-scepticism remained in a relevant portion of students.
conclusionsThe Biomedical Research Module is effective in improving self-assessed competencies that are necessary for the application of EBM and the scholar’s role according to the 5-A cycle in second-year students. However, certain active skills require further training, such as statistics and development of a research plan. Furthermore, a minority perpetuated certain sceptical attitudes towards the scientific process. Alternative approaches to changing such attitudes require further research.
trial registrationThis is not a clinical trial. The responsible ethics committee waived the need for approval (BASEC-Nr. Req-2023-00325).
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.