ArticleBMC medical ethics2025
The driving forces of research ethics in academia: insights from students based on the theory of planned behavior.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundResearch ethics is crucial for protecting participants' rights in medical studies. Although several studies have explored general awareness and attitudes toward research ethics among medical students, few have systematically examined the behavioral determinants of adherence to Research Ethical Codes (REC) using established theoretical models. This study addresses this gap by identifying the determinants of REC adherence among students at Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences (KUMS), applying the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) as a conceptual framework.
methodsA descriptive-analytical study was conducted in 2024 among KUMS students. A cluster sampling approach was used, with structured questionnaires distributed to gather data on demographics and TPB constructs. Data were analyzed using SPSS, employing Pearson correlation and linear regression analyses.
resultsThe study included 271 participants with a mean age of 23.99 years. The adherence level to ethical codes was 69.1%. The adjusted R² value was 0.352, indicating that 35.2% of the variance in adherence to REC behavior was explained by the model. Notably, attitude (B = 0.694, p < 0.001) and intention (B = 0.857, p = 0.002) were significant predictors. The highest adherence was for confidentiality (mean score = 4.04), while the lowest was for obtaining ethical approval before data collection (mean score = 2.68).
conclusionsThe findings indicate a 69.1% adherence to ethical research codes, with attitude and intention identified as key predictors of ethical behavior. These results emphasize the importance of targeted educational strategies to strengthen students' commitment to ethical research practices.
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.