ArticleBMC medical education2026
Perceived readiness for clinical practice among recent graduates of a 5 + 2 reformed medical curriculum.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. 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
backgroundTransitioning from medical school to clinical practice is critical for recent medical graduates. Ensuring that graduates feel adequately prepared for this transition is essential for delivering high-quality patient care. The newly implemented reformed medical curriculum (comprising 5 years of medical school followed by 2 years of internship, replacing the traditional 6-year school and 1-year internship) at the Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University (FOM-SCU), Egypt, seeks to enhance readiness for clinical practice by integrating competency-based education, early clinical exposure, and extended internship training. This study aims to assess the perceived readiness of the first cohort of graduates from this reformed curriculum for clinical practice and to identify areas requiring improvement.
methodsA cross-sectional, survey-based study was conducted among the first cohort of medical graduates (academic year 2022–2023) from the reformed curriculum at FOM-SCU. A validated, self-administered questionnaire was distributed electronically to collect data on graduates’ perceived readiness across four domains: Communication and Collaboration, Comprehensive Clinical Practice, Clinical Skills and Confidence, and Ethical, Empathetic, and Safe Patient Care. Responses were recorded using a 5-point Likert scale. Two open-ended questions were added to the survey to assess expected challenges and suggestions for enhancements. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were performed. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsA total of 141 graduates participated (response rate: 66.8%). The mean overall perceived readiness score was 3.79 ± 0.64, with Communication and Collaboration rated highest (4.08 ± 0.57), reflecting strengths in teamwork and communication. Comprehensive Clinical Practice was rated lowest (3.55 ± 0.64), indicating challenges in managing complex cases and administrative tasks. Male graduates reported significantly higher readiness across all domains (p < 0.05). Graduates with extra-curricular clinical experience showed higher readiness (p = 0.013).
conclusionsWhile graduates of the reformed curriculum at FOM-SCU reported moderate preparedness for clinical practice, some areas for improvement were identified in basic medical skills and comprehensive clinical practice, particularly in handling complex medical conditions and administrative responsibilities. Enhancing hands-on training, structured mentorship, and simulation-based learning could improve graduates’ confidence and competence.
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.