Clinical Research in Saudi Arabia: Trainee Knowledge and Attitude
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Clinical research is an integral part of medical and surgical residency programmes, as well as medical school. Aim This study aimed to investigate attitudes toward, the experience of, and perceived barriers to, conducting clinical research in the medical and surgical fields in Saudi Arabia. We also aimed to explore attitudes toward article processing charges and submission fees. Methods A cross-sectional study conducted in Saudi Arabia during the months of May-June 2021. The inclusion criteria were trainees in various medical and surgical specialities. Results The majority of participants conducted at least one research project, representing 92.5% (n=185); of those, 77.3% (n=143) had already published their research. While 33.5% (n=67) of participants felt comfortable designing, leading and critically appraising articles, only 17.3% (n=34) were comfortable using statistical software. Barriers to clinical research include lack of personal interest, lack of interest on the part of programme directors/mentors, inadequate support from mentors/assistants, being overwhelmed with educational activities and examinations, lack of reward and/or motivation, and difficulties obtaining an appropriate sample. Conclusion This article provides new insight into the knowledge of, and attitude toward, clinical research among Saudi Arabian trainees, and discusses the implications thereof and the future direction of clinical research in Saudi Arabia.
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 | 0.107 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.004 |
| 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".