Chinese Journal of Medical Education ›› 2023, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (8): 565-569.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115259-20220908-01132

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Investigation and analysis on the course of sciences in clinical research among doctoral candidates of professional degree majoring in clinical medicine

Wu Yanhua1, Mu Dongmei1, Zheng Xiangyu2, Jia Zhifang1, Zhang Yangyu1, Zhao Tianye1, Cao Donghui1, Li Bai3, Jiang Jing1   

  1. 1Division of Clinical Epidemiology, First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun 130021, China;
    2Department of Teaching, First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun 130021, China;
    3Department of General Surgery Center & Colorectal and Anal Surgery, First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun 130021, China
  • Received:2022-09-08 Online:2023-08-01 Published:2023-07-31
  • Contact: Jiang Jing, Email: jiangjing19702000@jlu.edu.cn
  • Supported by:
    2021 Teaching Research Project of Jilin Higher Education Association (JGJX2021C3); 2021 Cultivation Project of Top-quality Courses for Graduate Students of Norman Bethume Health Science Center of Jilin University(2021J007); 2022 Research Project of Education and Teaching Reform of Jilin University(2022JGY017)

Abstract: 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.

Key words: Clinical medicine, Clinical research methodology, Doctoral graduates of professional degree, Importance, Mastery

CLC Number: