Understanding Medical Students’ Attitudes Toward Learning eHealth: Questionnaire Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several publications on research into eHealth demonstrate promising results. Prior researchers indicated that the current generation of doctors is not trained to take advantage of eHealth in clinical practice. Therefore, training and education for everyone using eHealth are key factors to its successful implementation. We set out to review whether medical students feel prepared to take advantage of eHealth innovations in medicine. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate whether medical students desire a dedicated eHealth curriculum during their medical studies. METHODS: A questionnaire assessing current education, the need for education about eHealth topics, and the didactical forms for teaching these topics was developed. Questionnaire items were scored on a scale from 1 (fully disagree with a topic) to 10 (fully agree with a topic). This questionnaire was distributed among 1468 medical students of Maastricht University in the Netherlands. R version 3.5.0 (The R Foundation) was used for all statistical procedures. RESULTS: A total of 303 students out of 1468, representing a response rate of 20.64%, replied to our questionnaire. The aggregate statement "I feel prepared to take advantage of the technological developments within the medical field" was scored at a mean value of 4.8 out of 10. Mean scores regarding the need for education about eHealth topics ranged from 6.4 to 7.3. Medical students did not favor creating their own health apps or mobile apps; the mean score was 4.9 for this topic. The most popular didactical option, with a mean score 7.2, was to remotely follow a real-life patient under the supervision of a doctor. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest evaluation of students' opinions on eHealth training in a medical undergraduate curriculum. We found that medical students have positives attitudes toward incorporating eHealth into the medical curriculum.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".