Search

Background: Medicine is one of the most inaccessible professions in the United Kingdom (UK). The Plant a Seed (PAS) series was created to address this; it is an online pre-recorded three-part video series to "Inspire", "Educate" and "Motivate" pupils from widening participation backgrounds on Medicine. We explored the impact of PAS on pupils' knowledge, skills and attitude to Medicine. Methods: We conducted a national pretest-posttest study of Years 7–9 pupils in the UK. 503 schools were invited to PAS, following ethics approval. Consented pupils viewed all three episodes asynchronously and completed a pre-and post-series Likert scale confidence questionnaire, which evaluated their knowledge, skills and attitudes to a medical career. A Shapiro-Wilk test showed the lack of a normal distribution (p < 0.05); therefore, a Wilcoxon signed-rank test statistically compared pretest-posttest results of each pupil. Results: 70 pupils in Years 7–9 from 2 schools participated in this study. PAS was shown to significantly increase pupils' knowledge of the role and life of a doctor, medicine as a degree, admissions requirements, and careers in medicine (p < 0.05). There was a significant increase in pupils believing they could study medicine. The intervention did not significantly increase the desire for pupils to study medicine (p = 0.187). Conclusion: PAS significantly improved pupils' knowledge, skills and confidence demonstrating the need and benefit to enrolment of the programme at scale. It did not significantly increase the number of pupils wishing to study medicine. Analysis at scale is required to evaluate the effectiveness of PAS as a key intervention to break down barriers to medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: People may differ in their vaccine-related beliefs (i.e. efficacy, safety, purpose), with a host of factors influencing these differences. This can produce homogeneous groups of individuals who share certain beliefs, attitudes and opinions not only towards vaccines but science and medicine in general. This study aims to characterise distinct subgroups and identify ideal targets for tailored public health interventions to reinforce favourable vaccine beliefs. Methods: Latent class analysis was used to derive unique profiles using the 2019 Gallup survey of 140 countries. We modelled a composite of vaccine beliefs and regressed this on class membership and relevant covariates. Results: Patterns of item endorsement indicated a well-fitting five-class model, with classes distinguished based on whether individuals sought personal knowledge about science, medicine and health; trusted science and scientists; and reported confidence in the health care system. The lowest levels of vaccine beliefs were reported by a class lacking trust and confidence and the highest levels were reported by a class endorsing trust, confidence and desiring medical and scientific knowledge. Country-level income was moderately related to class membership, and vaccine beliefs were higher in lower-income countries. Conclusions: Findings suggest that public health campaigns can focus on improving trust in science and medical providers. Efforts to improve vaccination rates can only be achieved when individuals trust science, view the work of scientists as beneficial and hold favourable views towards health care providers. Individuals will then accrue the necessary wisdom to make good health care decisions that affect not only themselves but also their fellow citizens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

More than anything, I care about people. I am concerned about how the practices, structures, values, and ways of thinking embedded in medical education—i.e. our ideology—shape the experiences of people who work in our field. Despite being largely blind to its effects, ideology is powerfully at play in medical education—creating social identities, generating relationship patterns, justifying specific conduct, and maintaining and reproducing social order. Every educational system—including the entire medical education continuum—perpetuates ideology. We train future generations of physicians to uphold behavioral expectations and to maintain a specific social order. However, ideology is not always consistent. Individual aspects of our ideology can be incompatible, and, when they are, it is the people who carry the burden of the resulting tensions. Fortunately, ideology is maintained by our decisions and actions; therefore, we can change our decisions and thereby modify the ideology to work for us, not against us. Practice Points Medical education's environment is constructed–formed by policies, practices, and structures we created. Embedded within this environment is ideology. Medical education's ideology affects individuals by hailing us to be specific kinds of people. Aspects of medical education's ideology can be incongruent. When hailed by ideology's contradictory aspects, it is hard—sometimes impossible—to fulfill the call to be 'good doctors'. That inability to answer the hailing can have detrimental impact on individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research integrity has obtained much attention in research communities, but also in the general public. To improve research integrity is difficult as it involves complex systems of knowledge, attitudes, and practices. The objective of this study is to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of cohorts of PhD candidates at one faculty (of medicine) over time and compare this to finished PhDs of the same cohorts. Material and method: Researchers (n = 186) awarded the degree PhD at the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Oslo in 2019 were invited to answer a questionnaire about knowledge, attitudes and actions related to scientific dishonesty. 94 responded (50.5%). The results were compared with results among first-year PhD candidates who responded to the same questionnaire during 2010–20 (n = 536) and to those who finished PhDs in 2016 (n = 86). Results: For the years 2010–2020 1.1% of the PhD candidates report to have engaged in severe scientific misconduct (FFP) while 0.9% report to have presented results in a misleading way. 2.3% report that they know of persons at their department who have engaged in FFP the last 12 months. In total 1.5% report to have experienced pressure to engage in severe scientific misconduct (FFP) while 2.1% report to have experienced pressure to present results in a misleading way. On average 12.8% report to have been exposed to unethical pressure concerning inclusion or ordering of authors during the last 12 months, and 28.8% report to have knowledge about their department's written policies about research integrity. While some attitudes improve over the years, attitudes in general are not much changed from 2010–2020. None of the PhDs that received a PhD from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Oslo in 2019 reported to have engaged in FFT or having experienced pressure to do so.1.1% experienced pressure to present results in other misleading ways, while 26.6% of respondents had experienced unethical pressure in relation to authorship during the course of the PhD fellowship. 4.3% knew about someone at their department who had presented results in a misleading manner. Some attitudes were not in line with traditional conceptions of research integrity, but most agreed that their research environment displayed research integrity. Conclusion: This long-term follow up study shows that few PhD-candidates report to engage in severe scientific misconduct, that they experience little pressure to do so, and with some exceptions, attitudes in in line with good research integrity. However, pressure in relation to authorship is relatively common. There is some improvement in research integrity from PhD candidates to recently finished PhDs, but in general research integrity is stable over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Porcine-derived medical products represent an effective solution for a wide range of human suffering, yet this may contradict Muslim and Jewish religious prohibitions against consuming pig. The present study evaluated the level to which Muslim and Jewish participants are knowledgeable about the conditions permitting porcine-based treatments and explored their attitudes toward the permissibility of these treatments. A questionnaire that presented fifteen medical uses of porcine-derived products was completed by 809 Muslims and 714 Jews. Neither Muslim nor Jewish participants are knowledgeable about the religious rulings of their religions which permit the use of pig for life saving. Participants of both groups objected to the view that porcine-derived materials should be permitted. The findings imply that the attitude toward porcine-derived materials for medical use is contingent upon the knowledge or lack thereof that individuals have regarding the permissibility of such use. We offer useful recommendations to improve the informed consent process before conducting porcine-based treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]