ArticleBMC medical education2026
Knowledge and perceptions on dengue among internship medical students and rural physicians in Ecuador: a cross-sectional study, 2025.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDengue is a public health concern in Ecuador, with sustained transmission in the Pacific Coast, Amazon, Galapagos Islands, and emerging in the Andean region. Adequate knowledge and perceptions among medical students and physicians are essential for diagnosis, appropriate management, patient education, and control. This study evaluated dengue-related knowledge and perceptions among Ecuadorian students in the internship program (interns) and physicians in the rural medical service program, and to identify factors associated with higher knowledge scores.
methodsA nationwide cross-sectional study was conducted between January and July 2025 using a self-administered online questionnaire. The 44-item survey covered knowledge of dengue (0–27 points) across four domains—aetiology/pathophysiology (6 questions), clinical features (6), diagnosis (5), and management/treatment (10)—as well as training experiences and perceptions (14 questions). Descriptive statistics and inferential analyses were performed using χ² tests, Student’s t-test, one-way ANOVA, and Pearson’s correlation, with significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsA total of 811 responses were analysed (455 interns and 356 rural GPs; mean age 25.8 ± 3.4 years; 61.3% female). The overall mean knowledge score was 14.0 ± 3.4/27 points, slightly above the midpoint. Scores were highest for aetiology/pathophysiology (4.3 ± 1.0/6) and diagnosis (2.7 ± 0.9/5), but lowest for clinical features (2.4 ± 1.2/6) and management/treatment (4.5 ± 1.7/10). Higher scores were significantly associated with prior lectures in tropical medicine and previous experience diagnosing or treating dengue cases. No statistically significant differences were observed in overall knowledge between the two groups. However, physicians were more likely than interns to report dengue-specific training in the past year (64.8%; p = 0.001), familiarity with the dengue official guidelines (64.3%; p = 0.001), and prior clinical experience managing dengue cases (62.4%; p = 0.001). Over half of participants perceived insufficient dengue training during medical education and believed that health authorities do not adequately train physicians.
conclusionsThis first nationwide study reveals critical gaps in dengue knowledge, particularly in clinical recognition and management, among Ecuadorian medical interns and rural physicians. Strengthening tropical medicine curricula and continuing professional education is needed to improve clinical preparedness and enhance the healthcare system’s capacity to respond to ongoing dengue transmission and outbreaks.
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.