Biostatistik/Biometrie für Mediziner/-innen – unabdingbar oder entbehrlich? Wie bewerten praktizierende Human- und Zahnmediziner/-innen die Biostatistik/Biometrie? Eine Fragebogenstudie
Background: The aim of this project was to explore how physicians and dentists in Germany evaluate biostatistics/biometry in general as well as their training in it. A further aim was to determine the importance of the subject for the professional practice of physicians and dentists and to gain insi...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | GMS Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie Biometrie und Epidemiologie, 2023-10, Vol.19, p.Doc14 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | ger |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background: The aim of this project was to explore how physicians and dentists in Germany evaluate biostatistics/biometry in general as well as their training in it. A further aim was to determine the importance of the subject for the professional practice of physicians and dentists and to gain insights for teaching – during studies at university and beyond.Method: A total of 2,000 physicians and 700 dentists from Schleswig-Holstein in Germany were contacted by mail and asked to participate in an online survey. They were asked to provide information on their perception of the subject of biostatistics/biometry in general, in relation to work and to teaching during their own studies as well as information on sociodemographic data. The evaluation was explorative with representation in cross tables. In addition, the association of predictive variables with the attitude was estimated descriptively in a logistic regression. In order to examine differences between physicians and dentists with regard to the usefulness of biostatistics/biometry for practical work as well as with regard to their own training during their studies, cross tables were constructed and descriptive p-values were determined with the χ goodness-of-fit test or Fisher’s exact tests.Results: The response rate was 13.67% (356/2,605). The subject was rated as difficult by 58.76% (208/354). 93.48% (330/353) stated that the subject is a necessary skill for a clinician involved in research, and 93.79% (332/354) rated the subject as important for evidence-based medicine. 20.00% (69/345) rated the teaching in biostatistics/biometry during their own studies as still useful today. 65.22% (225/345) expressed that they would like to understand more about the subject.Conclusion: The subject of biostatistics/biometry was rated as important for research, evidence-based medicine and a range of other medical activities, while many physicians and dentists expressed dissatisfaction with their teaching during their studies. Thus, further postgraduate training in biostatistics/biometry with appropriate practical relevance should be developed. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1860-9171 |
DOI: | 10.3205/mibe000253 |