目的 了解临床医学专业学位博士研究生(简称临床专博)对临床研究方法学课程相关知识重要性的认识及掌握程度,为设置适于临床专博的临床研究方法学课程内容的提供参考。方法 根据专业学位研究生核心课程指南中的课程内容和相关文献自行设计问卷,2021年11月,对吉林大学3所医院2021年入学的116名临床专博进行问卷调查,并对调查结果进行统计分析,组间比较采用t检验和卡方检验。结果 内容重要性评分最高的是科研选题和研究方案设计,均为(3.57±0.58)分,掌握性评分最高的是文献综述,为(2.38±0.73)分。数据清洗与质控的重要性评分为(3.36±0.58)分,排第九,但掌握程度评分仅为(1.71±0.77)分,排在最后。既往学习过临床研究方法学课程与未学习过的临床专博在重要性评分方面,只有知情同意 [(3.18±0.56)分比(3.39±0.53)分]的差异具有统计学意义(P=0.039);掌握程度评价方面,循证医学[(2.40±0.51)分比(1.99±0.60)分]、科研伦理[(2.24±0.76)分比(1.91±0.72)分]、研究方法学[(2.06±0.61)分比(1.78±0.61)分]、数据管理与统计分析[(2.06±0.70)分比(1.75±0.60)分]、临床研究实践[(1.99±0.72)分比(1.65±0.66)分]的差异均具有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。结论 临床专博认为科研选题、研究方案设计、数据清洗与质控是重要的内容,文献综述掌握最好,数据清洗与质控掌握欠佳需要加强。不同临床研究方法学学习经历的临床专博相关内容掌握程度不一,实施分层教学为佳。

Objective This study aimed to understand the perception and mastery level of science in clinical research among doctoral candidates of professional degree majoring in clinical medicine. The findings will serve to inform the designing of the curriculum of science courses in clinical research. Methods A questionnaire was designed based on the course content outlined in the guidelines for core courses of professional degree graduate programs and relevant literature. In November 2021, a questionnaire survey was conducted among 116 doctoral candidates of professional degree majoring in clinical medicine enrolled in three hospitals affiliated with Jilin University in 2021. Statistical analysis was performed. T tests and χ² tests were used for comparison between groups. Results The highest importance rating was for formulating a scientific question and designing the research, with scores of (3.57±0.58) each. The highest mastery rating was given for the literature review, with a score of (2.38±0.73). The importance rating for data cleaning and quality assurance was (3.36±0.58), ranking ninth, but the mastery score was only (1.71±0.77), ranking last.Between individuals who had previously completed a course on clinical research methodology and those who hadnot, statistical difference was observed only in the comparison of informed consent [(3.18±0.56) vs. (3.39±0.53)](P=0.039), proficiency assessments revealed statistical differences in evidence based medicine [(2.40±0.51) vs. (1.99±0.60)], research ethics [(2.24±0.76) vs. (1.91±0.72)], research methodology [(2.06±0.61) vs. (1.78±0.61)],data management and statistical analysis [(2.06±0.70) vs. (1.75±0.60)], and clinical trial practices [(1.99±0.72) vs. (1.65±0.66)] (all P<0.05). Conclusions Doctoral candidates of professional degree highly value formulating a scientific question, designing research, assessment of scientific papers, data cleaning and quality assurance. Stratified teaching strategies should be employed to address the varying backgrounds of students in clinical research methodology.