ArticleBMC medical education2026
An investigative study on enhancing the competence of medical students via participation in extracurricular research activities.
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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAs medical education evolves from traditional knowledge dissemination to evidence-based practice, problem-solving, and lifelong learning, developing research literacy among students has become essential. This study investigates medical undergraduates’ research participation, challenges encountered, and attitudes toward research, aiming to inform curricular reforms that foster research-competent healthcare professionals.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted using stratified random sampling to recruit full-time undergraduates across majors and academic years at Guangzhou Medical University (GMU). A validated self-administered questionnaire assessing extracurricular research engagement was distributed, yielding 410 valid responses. Data were analyzed using SPSS 25.0, with descriptive statistics and correlation tests applied.
resultsStudents predominantly identified mentors through proactive engagement (55.1%) and faculty referral (42.4%), yet mentoring was infrequent, with only 35.6% receiving guidance biweekly. Significant discrepancies were reported between expected and actual guidance in topic selection, study design and data analysis. While 80.7% expressed satisfaction with institutional research training systems, demand for practical courses, particularly academic writing (64.4%) and clinical case discussions (58.8%), remained high. Self-evaluation indicated post-training improvements in statistical analysis and writing skills. Ranking of laboratory abilities showed strengths in experimental design and operational skills, with lower scores in aseptic techniques and normative laboratory habits.
conclusionsStudents' positive attitudes toward research reflect the effectiveness of recent educational reforms. However, disparities in participation linked to academic progression and program structure highlight systemic inequities in resource allocation. To address these gaps, we recommend prioritizing mentor training, enhancing time management, expanding funding opportunities, and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration. Implementing structured mentor-student pairing systems may further enhance equitable access to research experiences.
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.