↓ Skip to main content

Development and validation of an instrument to assess the prescribing readiness of medical students in Malaysia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Development and validation of an instrument to assess the prescribing readiness of medical students in Malaysia
Published in
BMC Medical Education, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12909-015-0433-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pauline Siew Mei Lai, Si Mui Sim, Siew Siang Chua, Choo Hock Tan, Chirk Jenn Ng, Francis Ifejika Achike, Cheong Lieng Teng

Abstract

Prescribing incompetence is an important factor that contributes to prescribing error, and this is often due to inadequate training during medical schools. We therefore aimed to develop and validate an instrument to assess the prescribing readiness of medical students (PROMS) in Malaysia. The PROMS comprised of 26 items with four domains: undergraduate learning opportunities; hands-on clinical skills practice; information gathering behaviour; and factors affecting the learning of prescribing skills. The first three domains were adapted from an existing questionnaire, while items from the last domain were formulated based on findings from a nominal group discussion. Face and content validity was determined by an expert panel, pilot tested in a class of final year (Year 5) medical students, and assessed using the Flesch reading ease. To assess the reliability of the PROMS, the internal consistency and test-retest (at baseline and 2 weeks later) were assessed using the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test and Spearman's rho. The discriminative validity of the PROMS was assessed using the Mann-Whitney U-test (to assess if the PROMS could discriminate between final year medical students from a public and a private university). A total of 119 medical students were recruited. Flesch reading ease was 46.9, indicating that the instrument was suitable for use in participants undergoing tertiary education. The overall Cronbach alpha value of the PROMS was 0.695, which was satisfactory. Test-retest showed no difference for 25/26 items, indicating that our instrument was reliable. Responses from the public and private university final year medical students were significantly different in 10/26 items, indicating that the PROMS was able to discriminate between these two groups. Medical students from the private university reported fewer learning opportunities and hands-on practice compared to those from the public university. On the other hand, medical students from the private university reported more frequent use of both web based and non-web-based resources compared to their public university counterparts. The PROMS instrument was found to be a reliable and valid tool for assessing medical students' readiness to prescribe in Malaysia. It may also inform on the adequacy of medical programmes in training prescribing skills.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 15%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Researcher 5 7%
Other 26 35%
Unknown 12 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 36%
Social Sciences 10 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Computer Science 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 16 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 October 2015.
All research outputs
#18,429,163
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,742
of 3,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,353
of 274,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#52
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,322 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,252 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.