MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399204348 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0304357

Confidence, attitude, and practice of scientific research among health professions’ students in the United Arab Emirates

2024· article· en· W4399204348 on OpenAlexaff
Anan S. Jarab, Walid Al‐Qerem, Karem H. Alzoubi, Shrouq Abu Heshmeh, Mays Hayek, Yazid N. Al Hamarneh, Salahdein Aburuz

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidence intervalContext (archaeology)MedicineDemographicsCross-sectional studyLogistic regressionFamily medicinePsychologySocial mediaMedical educationDemographyGeographyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the confidence, attitude, and scientific research practices of undergraduate students of different health profession specialties. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, an online-based questionnaire was distributed as a Google Form via groups and pages of medical universities available on social media sites such as Facebook, WhatsApp, and Twitter to the second- to sixth-year students of different health profession specialties in different universities across the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in the period from October through December 2023 using the convenience sampling technique. The questionnaire included four parts that assessed socio-demographics and custom-designed research-related questions (6 items), perceived confidence (8 items), attitudes (14 items), and the practice in the context of scientific research and its implementation (9 items). Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to explore the variables associated with the study outcomes, including confidence, attitudes, and practice levels. RESULTS: The study included 522 undergraduate students. The participants reported low confidence, a negative attitude, and low scientific research practice. Regression results revealed that individuals without prior research experiences were less likely to have high confidence and practice compared to those with previous research experience (OR = 0.634, 95% CI: 0.426-0.945, p = 0.025; and OR = 0.139, 95%Cl: 0.090-0.216, P<0.001, respectively). Additionally, participants who reported difficulty in differentiating between various literature resources were less likely to have high confidence and practice compared to those who reported the ability to differentiate (OR = 0.627, 95% CI: 0.42-0.935, p = 0.022, and OR = 0.370, 95%Cl: 0.237-0.579, p<0.001, respectively). Furthermore, individuals who had not taught research methods in their undergraduate studies were less likely to have high practice (OR = 0.505, 95%Cl: 0.309-0.823, p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Undergraduates of different medical specialties in the UAE demonstrated acceptable levels of confidence and attitude toward scientific research, with several areas for practice improvement. Education and training courses focusing on various aspects of scientific research should be incorporated into the medical curricula in order to enhance students' confidence and practice of scientific research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.534
GPT teacher head0.568
Teacher spread0.035 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207