ArticlePloS one2026
Professionalism and associated factors among health professions education students: A primary mixed-methods study from Qatar.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
backgroundProfessionalism, the judicious use of communication, knowledge, and values for benefits of individuals and communities, is a keystone in health education, and is demarcated by distinct tenets. Professionalism among health professions education students at Qatar University (QU) has not been previously explored. The current study aimed at assessment of professionalism and its tenets among students at the five QU Health Sector colleges, and exploring associated factors.
methodsA mixed-methods convergent parallel design was used. For the quantitative phase, data were collected anonymously from students using the Pharmacy Professionalism Instrument (PPI), which assesses overall professionalism score, and scores of six tenets: Excellence, Respect, Altruism, Duty, Accountability, and Honor/Integrity. The qualitative phase involved focus groups exploring students' perspectives on professionalism and opportunities for its fostering.
resultsA total of 536 survey responses were analyzed. The mean PPI score indicated fair levels of professionalism and Excellence, Altruism, Duty and Honor/Integrity tenets, while Accountability and Respect exhibited excellent levels. Scores statistically increased with study progress for overall professionalism, as well as Excellence and Respect tenets. Focus groups confirmed student views on tenets of Excellence, Respect, Altruism, Accountability, and Honor/Integrity. Yet, a slight discrepancy in the latter tenet emerged regarding necessity of reporting errors, with some students expressing concerns about potential consequences.
conclusionFavorable professionalism development across years of study and some excellent professionalism tenets were revealed among students. Amidst evolution in education and sociocultural norms, health education curricula should uphold cultivation of professionalism concepts, and establish an environment of recognition and nurturing of professionalism.
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.