Medical professionalism in ophthalmology: design and testing of a scenario based survey
Professionalism is hard to quantify but essential in medical practice. We present a survey tool for ophthalmologists that assessed professionalism using case-based scenarios in central Saudi Arabia. Ophthalmologists (resident, fellows and consultants) participated in a web-based survey in 2015. Out...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | BMC medical education 2020-05, Vol.20 (1), p.160-160, Article 160 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 160 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 160 |
| container_title | BMC medical education |
| container_volume | 20 |
| creator | Alkahtani, Eman Assiri, Abdullah Alrashaed, Saba Alharbi, Mosa Almotowa, Saeed Khandekar, Rajiv Edward, Deepak P |
| description | Professionalism is hard to quantify but essential in medical practice. We present a survey tool for ophthalmologists that assessed professionalism using case-based scenarios in central Saudi Arabia.
Ophthalmologists (resident, fellows and consultants) participated in a web-based survey in 2015. Out of 44 attributes related to professionalism, experts selected 32 attributes with validity indices of ≥0.80. To evaluate these attributes, 51 scenario-based questions were developed and included in the survey. For each attribute, participants were given choices of close ended responses: unacceptable (1), probably unacceptable (2), acceptable (3), probably acceptable (4). The attribute score was compared to the gold standard (responses of an expert group). An attribute score was generated and compared among subgroups.
Of the 155 ophthalmologists, responses of 147 ophthalmologists who completed more than 50% of questions were reviewed. Their mean attribute score was 84.1 ± 10.1 (Median 87.1; 25% quartile 78.1; minimum 50; and maximum 100). The variation in attribute score among consultants, fellows and resident ophthalmologists was significant (P = 0.008). The variation of attribute score by groups of attributes was also significant (P |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1186/s12909-020-02071-y |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_6a4690e1832f4c1ca5e493a4aeaf789d</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A627462111</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_6a4690e1832f4c1ca5e493a4aeaf789d</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A627462111</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c563t-3bb780c76dcbff65fed44211e95d249fd7fc45f113714e88d322f13099b825e53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptUkuLFDEYbERxH_oHPEjAy156zauTjgdhWVxdWPGieAzp5EtPhu7OmPQs9L83M7OuOyIhJHypqlBFVdUbgi8JacX7TKjCqsYU77Yk9fKsOiVc0looip8_uZ9UZzmvMSayZeRldcIop0pRcVr9_AouWDOgTYoecg5xMkPIIwoTipvVvDLDGIfYLx-Qgxz6CZnJoRnyHKYeRY8MyhYmk0JEncngUN6me1heVS-8GTK8fjjPqx83n75ff6nvvn2-vb66q20j2FyzrpMttlI423kvGg-Oc0oIqMZRrryT3vLGE8Ik4dC2jlHqCcNKdS1toGHn1e1B10Wz1psURpMWHU3Q-0FMvTZpDnYALQwXCgNpGfXcEmsa4IoZbsB42SpXtD4etDbbbgRXbM3JDEeixy9TWOk-3mtJmVANKwIXDwIp_tqWjPQYSjrDYCaI26wpxw3DjcS8QN_9A13HbSrZ71GcKUYY-4vqTTEQJh_Lv3Ynqq8ElVyUqEhBXf4HVZaDMdg4gQ9lfkSgB4JNMecE_tEjwXpXLX2oli610vtq6aWQ3j5N55Hyp0vsN1WcyQo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2404393133</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Medical professionalism in ophthalmology: design and testing of a scenario based survey</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Alkahtani, Eman ; Assiri, Abdullah ; Alrashaed, Saba ; Alharbi, Mosa ; Almotowa, Saeed ; Khandekar, Rajiv ; Edward, Deepak P</creator><creatorcontrib>Alkahtani, Eman ; Assiri, Abdullah ; Alrashaed, Saba ; Alharbi, Mosa ; Almotowa, Saeed ; Khandekar, Rajiv ; Edward, Deepak P</creatorcontrib><description>Professionalism is hard to quantify but essential in medical practice. We present a survey tool for ophthalmologists that assessed professionalism using case-based scenarios in central Saudi Arabia.
Ophthalmologists (resident, fellows and consultants) participated in a web-based survey in 2015. Out of 44 attributes related to professionalism, experts selected 32 attributes with validity indices of ≥0.80. To evaluate these attributes, 51 scenario-based questions were developed and included in the survey. For each attribute, participants were given choices of close ended responses: unacceptable (1), probably unacceptable (2), acceptable (3), probably acceptable (4). The attribute score was compared to the gold standard (responses of an expert group). An attribute score was generated and compared among subgroups.
Of the 155 ophthalmologists, responses of 147 ophthalmologists who completed more than 50% of questions were reviewed. Their mean attribute score was 84.1 ± 10.1 (Median 87.1; 25% quartile 78.1; minimum 50; and maximum 100). The variation in attribute score among consultants, fellows and resident ophthalmologists was significant (P = 0.008). The variation of attribute score by groups of attributes was also significant (P < 0.05). The score for 'Personal characteristics' was on a lower scale compared to that of other attribute groups. The variation in the scores for attribute groups; 'Personal characteristics attribute' group (p < 0.01) and 'Workplace practices & relationship' group (P = 0.03) for consultants, fellows and residents were significant.
Professionalism among ophthalmologists and those in training was high and influenced by years of experience. The survey tool appeared to show differences in responses to specific professional attribute groups between trainees and consultants. Additional studies with a larger sample size might be helpful in validating the survey as a tool to be used to assess professionalism in graduate medical education in ophthalmology.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1472-6920</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1472-6920</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/s12909-020-02071-y</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32429926</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BioMed Central Ltd</publisher><subject>College graduates ; Competence ; Consultants ; Consulting services ; Content Validity ; Correlation ; Ethics ; Feedback (Response) ; Graduate Medical Education ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Individual Characteristics ; Internship and Residency ; Medical education ; Medical ethics ; Medical personnel ; Medical practice ; Medical profession ; Nonparametric Statistics ; Ophthalmologists ; Ophthalmology ; Physicians ; Professional Competence ; Professional employees ; Professionalism ; Response rates ; Response Rates (Questionnaires) ; Saudi Arabia ; Statistical Analysis ; Surveys ; Surveys and Questionnaires - standards ; Teaching Methods ; Validity</subject><ispartof>BMC medical education, 2020-05, Vol.20 (1), p.160-160, Article 160</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 BioMed Central Ltd.</rights><rights>2020. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c563t-3bb780c76dcbff65fed44211e95d249fd7fc45f113714e88d322f13099b825e53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c563t-3bb780c76dcbff65fed44211e95d249fd7fc45f113714e88d322f13099b825e53</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7236953/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7236953/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,724,777,781,861,882,2096,27905,27906,53772,53774</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32429926$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Alkahtani, Eman</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Assiri, Abdullah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alrashaed, Saba</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alharbi, Mosa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Almotowa, Saeed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khandekar, Rajiv</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Edward, Deepak P</creatorcontrib><title>Medical professionalism in ophthalmology: design and testing of a scenario based survey</title><title>BMC medical education</title><addtitle>BMC Med Educ</addtitle><description>Professionalism is hard to quantify but essential in medical practice. We present a survey tool for ophthalmologists that assessed professionalism using case-based scenarios in central Saudi Arabia.
Ophthalmologists (resident, fellows and consultants) participated in a web-based survey in 2015. Out of 44 attributes related to professionalism, experts selected 32 attributes with validity indices of ≥0.80. To evaluate these attributes, 51 scenario-based questions were developed and included in the survey. For each attribute, participants were given choices of close ended responses: unacceptable (1), probably unacceptable (2), acceptable (3), probably acceptable (4). The attribute score was compared to the gold standard (responses of an expert group). An attribute score was generated and compared among subgroups.
Of the 155 ophthalmologists, responses of 147 ophthalmologists who completed more than 50% of questions were reviewed. Their mean attribute score was 84.1 ± 10.1 (Median 87.1; 25% quartile 78.1; minimum 50; and maximum 100). The variation in attribute score among consultants, fellows and resident ophthalmologists was significant (P = 0.008). The variation of attribute score by groups of attributes was also significant (P < 0.05). The score for 'Personal characteristics' was on a lower scale compared to that of other attribute groups. The variation in the scores for attribute groups; 'Personal characteristics attribute' group (p < 0.01) and 'Workplace practices & relationship' group (P = 0.03) for consultants, fellows and residents were significant.
Professionalism among ophthalmologists and those in training was high and influenced by years of experience. The survey tool appeared to show differences in responses to specific professional attribute groups between trainees and consultants. Additional studies with a larger sample size might be helpful in validating the survey as a tool to be used to assess professionalism in graduate medical education in ophthalmology.</description><subject>College graduates</subject><subject>Competence</subject><subject>Consultants</subject><subject>Consulting services</subject><subject>Content Validity</subject><subject>Correlation</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>Feedback (Response)</subject><subject>Graduate Medical Education</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Individual Characteristics</subject><subject>Internship and Residency</subject><subject>Medical education</subject><subject>Medical ethics</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Medical practice</subject><subject>Medical profession</subject><subject>Nonparametric Statistics</subject><subject>Ophthalmologists</subject><subject>Ophthalmology</subject><subject>Physicians</subject><subject>Professional Competence</subject><subject>Professional employees</subject><subject>Professionalism</subject><subject>Response rates</subject><subject>Response Rates (Questionnaires)</subject><subject>Saudi Arabia</subject><subject>Statistical Analysis</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires - standards</subject><subject>Teaching Methods</subject><subject>Validity</subject><issn>1472-6920</issn><issn>1472-6920</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNptUkuLFDEYbERxH_oHPEjAy156zauTjgdhWVxdWPGieAzp5EtPhu7OmPQs9L83M7OuOyIhJHypqlBFVdUbgi8JacX7TKjCqsYU77Yk9fKsOiVc0looip8_uZ9UZzmvMSayZeRldcIop0pRcVr9_AouWDOgTYoecg5xMkPIIwoTipvVvDLDGIfYLx-Qgxz6CZnJoRnyHKYeRY8MyhYmk0JEncngUN6me1heVS-8GTK8fjjPqx83n75ff6nvvn2-vb66q20j2FyzrpMttlI423kvGg-Oc0oIqMZRrryT3vLGE8Ik4dC2jlHqCcNKdS1toGHn1e1B10Wz1psURpMWHU3Q-0FMvTZpDnYALQwXCgNpGfXcEmsa4IoZbsB42SpXtD4etDbbbgRXbM3JDEeixy9TWOk-3mtJmVANKwIXDwIp_tqWjPQYSjrDYCaI26wpxw3DjcS8QN_9A13HbSrZ71GcKUYY-4vqTTEQJh_Lv3Ynqq8ElVyUqEhBXf4HVZaDMdg4gQ9lfkSgB4JNMecE_tEjwXpXLX2oli610vtq6aWQ3j5N55Hyp0vsN1WcyQo</recordid><startdate>20200519</startdate><enddate>20200519</enddate><creator>Alkahtani, Eman</creator><creator>Assiri, Abdullah</creator><creator>Alrashaed, Saba</creator><creator>Alharbi, Mosa</creator><creator>Almotowa, Saeed</creator><creator>Khandekar, Rajiv</creator><creator>Edward, Deepak P</creator><general>BioMed Central Ltd</general><general>BioMed Central</general><general>BMC</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20200519</creationdate><title>Medical professionalism in ophthalmology: design and testing of a scenario based survey</title><author>Alkahtani, Eman ; Assiri, Abdullah ; Alrashaed, Saba ; Alharbi, Mosa ; Almotowa, Saeed ; Khandekar, Rajiv ; Edward, Deepak P</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c563t-3bb780c76dcbff65fed44211e95d249fd7fc45f113714e88d322f13099b825e53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>College graduates</topic><topic>Competence</topic><topic>Consultants</topic><topic>Consulting services</topic><topic>Content Validity</topic><topic>Correlation</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>Feedback (Response)</topic><topic>Graduate Medical Education</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Individual Characteristics</topic><topic>Internship and Residency</topic><topic>Medical education</topic><topic>Medical ethics</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Medical practice</topic><topic>Medical profession</topic><topic>Nonparametric Statistics</topic><topic>Ophthalmologists</topic><topic>Ophthalmology</topic><topic>Physicians</topic><topic>Professional Competence</topic><topic>Professional employees</topic><topic>Professionalism</topic><topic>Response rates</topic><topic>Response Rates (Questionnaires)</topic><topic>Saudi Arabia</topic><topic>Statistical Analysis</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires - standards</topic><topic>Teaching Methods</topic><topic>Validity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Alkahtani, Eman</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Assiri, Abdullah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alrashaed, Saba</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alharbi, Mosa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Almotowa, Saeed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khandekar, Rajiv</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Edward, Deepak P</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>BMC medical education</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Alkahtani, Eman</au><au>Assiri, Abdullah</au><au>Alrashaed, Saba</au><au>Alharbi, Mosa</au><au>Almotowa, Saeed</au><au>Khandekar, Rajiv</au><au>Edward, Deepak P</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Medical professionalism in ophthalmology: design and testing of a scenario based survey</atitle><jtitle>BMC medical education</jtitle><addtitle>BMC Med Educ</addtitle><date>2020-05-19</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>20</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>160</spage><epage>160</epage><pages>160-160</pages><artnum>160</artnum><issn>1472-6920</issn><eissn>1472-6920</eissn><abstract>Professionalism is hard to quantify but essential in medical practice. We present a survey tool for ophthalmologists that assessed professionalism using case-based scenarios in central Saudi Arabia.
Ophthalmologists (resident, fellows and consultants) participated in a web-based survey in 2015. Out of 44 attributes related to professionalism, experts selected 32 attributes with validity indices of ≥0.80. To evaluate these attributes, 51 scenario-based questions were developed and included in the survey. For each attribute, participants were given choices of close ended responses: unacceptable (1), probably unacceptable (2), acceptable (3), probably acceptable (4). The attribute score was compared to the gold standard (responses of an expert group). An attribute score was generated and compared among subgroups.
Of the 155 ophthalmologists, responses of 147 ophthalmologists who completed more than 50% of questions were reviewed. Their mean attribute score was 84.1 ± 10.1 (Median 87.1; 25% quartile 78.1; minimum 50; and maximum 100). The variation in attribute score among consultants, fellows and resident ophthalmologists was significant (P = 0.008). The variation of attribute score by groups of attributes was also significant (P < 0.05). The score for 'Personal characteristics' was on a lower scale compared to that of other attribute groups. The variation in the scores for attribute groups; 'Personal characteristics attribute' group (p < 0.01) and 'Workplace practices & relationship' group (P = 0.03) for consultants, fellows and residents were significant.
Professionalism among ophthalmologists and those in training was high and influenced by years of experience. The survey tool appeared to show differences in responses to specific professional attribute groups between trainees and consultants. Additional studies with a larger sample size might be helpful in validating the survey as a tool to be used to assess professionalism in graduate medical education in ophthalmology.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BioMed Central Ltd</pub><pmid>32429926</pmid><doi>10.1186/s12909-020-02071-y</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1472-6920 |
| ispartof | BMC medical education, 2020-05, Vol.20 (1), p.160-160, Article 160 |
| issn | 1472-6920 1472-6920 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_6a4690e1832f4c1ca5e493a4aeaf789d |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; PubMed Central Open Access; Springer Nature OA Free Journals; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central |
| subjects | College graduates Competence Consultants Consulting services Content Validity Correlation Ethics Feedback (Response) Graduate Medical Education Hospitals Humans Individual Characteristics Internship and Residency Medical education Medical ethics Medical personnel Medical practice Medical profession Nonparametric Statistics Ophthalmologists Ophthalmology Physicians Professional Competence Professional employees Professionalism Response rates Response Rates (Questionnaires) Saudi Arabia Statistical Analysis Surveys Surveys and Questionnaires - standards Teaching Methods Validity |
| title | Medical professionalism in ophthalmology: design and testing of a scenario based survey |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T02%3A57%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Medical%20professionalism%20in%20ophthalmology:%20design%20and%20testing%20of%20a%20scenario%20based%20survey&rft.jtitle=BMC%20medical%20education&rft.au=Alkahtani,%20Eman&rft.date=2020-05-19&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=160&rft.epage=160&rft.pages=160-160&rft.artnum=160&rft.issn=1472-6920&rft.eissn=1472-6920&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/s12909-020-02071-y&rft_dat=%3Cgale_doaj_%3EA627462111%3C/gale_doaj_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2404393133&rft_id=info:pmid/32429926&rft_galeid=A627462111&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_6a4690e1832f4c1ca5e493a4aeaf789d&rfr_iscdi=true |