Undergraduate Medical Research Programme: A Cross-Sectional Study of Students’ Satisfactions, Perceived Challenges, and Attitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Implementing an undergraduate Medical Research Programme (MRP) in medical colleges may not only improve the subsequent career of medical students but also benefit the health system in general. If not designed effectively, however, such a programme could have the opposite impact. Therefore, the quality of a MRP should be evaluated continuously. This study aims to evaluate the MRP from medical students' perspective. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey study was conducted from March to April 2014 amongst undergraduate medical students at the College of Medicine, King Saud University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Satisfaction, perceived challenges, and attitudes towards the MRP were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 154 responses were collected from the students; 81(52.6%) were in the 2nd year and 73 (47.4%) were in the 3rd year of the MRP, 97(63%) were males. The mean±SD age was 21.5±0.82 years. Overall, most students were satisfied with the MRP (51.3%). The majority of students were of the opinion that there was a shortage of time to complete their work (57.6%) and a lack of motivation to do research (53.3%). Significant differences were found in the satisfaction levels and perceived challenges between students in the 2nd and 3rd year of the MRP (P≤.013). DISCUSSION: Assessment of medical students' perspective towards the MRP is an important aspect of the educative process. We recommend more evaluation studies, because they ensure that programmes effectively meet their goals and continue to be improved. A solid MRP is essential and will increase the university's profile.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.042 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".