MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404761919 · doi:10.5750/jmer.v4i2.2226

“An Introduction to Health Research: From Idea to Publication” – Designing and Implementing a Virtual Hands-On Research Course  for  Healthcare Students

2024· article· en· W4404761919 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Cuschieri, Andrea Cuschieri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Education Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCourse (navigation)Health careMedical educationEngineering ethicsEngineeringMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Early exposure to medical research is essential for healthcare professionals, to shape their careers and enhancing patient care. However, students face significant obstacles, such as lack of prior knowledge and mentorship. Malta’s healthcare students lack hands-on research teaching. Methods: To address this gap in knowledge, a tailored elective virtual research course was designed using the analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation (ADDIE) framework. Titled “An Introduction to Health Research: From Idea to Publication,” the course comprised eight weekly lectures covering theoretical and practical aspects of research. Teaching consisted of didactic teaching and problem-based learning tasks. Conducted via the University of Malta’s DegreePlus program, it allowed hands-on group work and active participation through online conferencing platforms. All students enrolled in the course completed pre- and post-course surveys, to assess whether the course affected students’ perception towards research. Results: Most (57.14%, CI95%: 32.55 – 78.66) were in pre-clinical years, predominantly female (78.57%, CI95%: 51.68 – 93.16). 85.71% (CI95%: 58.81 – 97.24) lacked research experience or publishing opportunities. Main barriers included lack of opportunity (50.00%), time (21.40%), and training (28.60%). Post-course, significant improvements (p < 0.05) were observed in research knowledge and confidence in conducting research. Qualitative analysis revealed that respondents expressed feelings of “empowerment through education” and appreciation for the “effective course design and delivery” of the course. Conclusion: Engaging medical students in research during training is crucial despite challenges like limited opportunities and foundational skills. A virtual research course has significantly improved students’ confidence, knowledge, and skills in conducting research, showcasing its potential to enhance research training globally and advance healthcare delivery.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.005

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 head0.537
GPT teacher head0.727
Teacher spread0.190 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Education Research→Same topicHealth Sciences Research and Education→French-language works237,207→