Observational studyBMC medical education2026
Process assessment of the attitude, ethics, and communication (AETCOM) sessions: student engagement and satisfaction among medical students in central India.
Observational study 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Attitude, Ethics, and Communication (AETCOM) module-integral to India's competency-based medical curriculum-has been designed to foster professionalism, empathy, and ethical decision-making among students graduating from medical colleges in India. However, the process of delivering AETCOM sessions remains insufficiently assessed. Focusing on Phase-III, Part-II MBBS students at R.D. Gardi Medical College, Ujjain, the present study examines how process assessment, based on student feedback and structured observer-based assessment, can provide insights into AETCOM session delivery and student engagement.
methodsThis observational study was conducted on 126 Phase-III, Part-II MBBS students (Batch 2021) over 3.5 months. Four AETCOM competencies-patient autonomy, medical error disclosure, confidentiality, and fiduciary duty-were taught in small groups by using interactive methods, such as role-play and discussions. Data were collected using the modified System for Evaluation of Teaching Qualities (SETQ) survey and an observer-based engagement checklist. The SETQ score ranges from 19 to 95. The actual scores were converted to percentages. Statistical analysis included Cronbach's alpha for reliability, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for session comparison, and Pearson's correlation to link the learning environment with student engagement.
resultsThe participants' attendance rate ranged from 92.0% to 99.2%. The modified SETQ demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α = 0.92). Satisfaction scores across the four sessions ranged between 87.97% and 89.86%, categorized as "very good." A one-way ANOVA revealed significant differences between sessions (p = 0.038), with the confidentiality module rated significantly higher than the patient autonomy module. Engagement metrics showed high levels of eye contact (91%-96%) and on-task behavior (84%-94.4%). Pearson correlation showed a strong positive relationship between the facilitator's professional attitude and student engagement (r = 0.70, p < 0.01). Note-taking was notably lower (30%-54%), which may reflect greater emphasis on active participation than traditional note-taking.
conclusionProcess assessment using validated tools like the SETQ provides useful insights into AETCOM session delivery. The findings suggest that interactive methods and positive facilitator-student rapport are associated with higher student engagement. These observations suggest that AETCOM sessions may support student engagement and reflective discussion in ethics-related learning.
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.