Perception of Plastic Surgery and the Role of Media Among Medical Students: Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although plastic surgery has been gaining a lot of popularity recently, there seems to be limited perception and a poor understanding of this field by both medical professionals, including medical students, and the general public. This might alter referral patterns as well as medical students' choice to pursue a career in plastic surgery. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess knowledge and perception of plastic surgery among medical students and to explore the influencing factors underlying particular beliefs. METHODS: Data for this cross-sectional study were collected between August 22 and December 22, 2017. The questionnaire was formulated on the basis of our own study objectives and from available questionnaires with similar objectives. It was composed of 14 questions divided into three main parts: demographics, the specialty of plastic surgery, and media involvement and its effect on plastic surgery. The study was conducted via an online questionnaire among medical students in all years at King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Data were considered significant at P<.05. All analyses were performed using SPSS, version 20. RESULTS: A total of 886 medical students participated in this study. We achieved a response rate of 56.79%. The mean age of the participants was 21.2 years. The mean awareness score was 9.7 (SD 4.2) for female students and 8.3 (SD 4.2) for male students (P<.001). The condition most commonly known to be treated by a plastic surgeon was burns (70.3% of responses). CONCLUSIONS: Medical students do not have adequate awareness of plastic surgery, and early exposure to this specialty may enhance their awareness.
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 | 0.051 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".