https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7068-3033
Figures
Abstract
Background
Embedding research training in undergraduate medical education strengthens analytical skills, scientific reasoning, and evidence-based practice, yet such training is often short-term or elective, with limited evidence from the Middle East. At our medical university, a mandatory longitudinal research curriculum was implemented with progressive skill development. Building on our previous work on the sequential integration of research methods, this study evaluates students’ perceptions of the program.
Aim
To investigate the perceived value, impact, and barriers of a longitudinal research curriculum among undergraduate medical students.
Methods
A cross-sectional survey was conducted among students who completed five compulsory research courses. The curriculum provided structured competencies through integrated content, protected time, and formal supervision. Data were collected using a self-administered questionnaire comprising demographics and 31 items rated on a 7-point Likert scale, assessing research perceptions and scholarly activities. Exploratory factor analysis identified five domains. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) and sampling adequacy (KMO test) were confirmed, with factor loadings ≥0.50 considered acceptable (p < 0.05).
Results
A total of 106 students completed the survey (67.9% female, 32.1% male; mean age 23 years (SD = 1.8)). Overall perceptions toward research were positive, total mean score of 162.17 (SD = 17.12), corresponding to 74.5% agreement. The highest-rated domains were positive attitude toward research (mean = 37.62, 89.6%), perceived relevance (mean = 40.30, 85.7%), and perceived necessity (mean = 37.14, 75.8%), indicating strong endorsement of research for clinical training and career development. Challenge-related domains showed moderate agreement (61.2%), reflecting research barriers and dissemination challenges.
Conclusion
Students strongly endorsed structured research training for professional competency development, and despite reported challenges, demonstrated a positive research orientation suggestive of sustained engagement. This study provides a novel evaluation of a mandatory longitudinal research curriculum in the Middle East. It addresses a critical regional gap and offers a model for integrating research training into undergraduate medical programs that support the development of clinician–scientists.
Citation: Ennab F, Abdulkareem RH, Kaddoura R, Hegazy A, Lootah M, Banerjee Y, et al. (2026) Exploring undergraduate medical students’ perception of an integrated longitudinal research curriculum within a competency-based framework. PLoS One 21(2): e0343409. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0343409
Editor: Ahmed Abdelwahab Ibrahim El-Sayed, Alexandria University Faculty of Nursing, EGYPT
Received: November 19, 2025; Accepted: February 5, 2026; Published: February 23, 2026
Copyright: © 2026 Ennab et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information file.
Funding: The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The authors would like to thank Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences (MBRU), Dubai Health, Dubai, UAE, for payment of the article processing charges. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
1. Introduction
Research education is widely recognized as a fundamental component of undergraduate training across disciplines, including medicine, engineering, and the social sciences, where it fosters creativity, critical thinking, and evidence-based practices [1–4]. In medical education specifically, structured research experiences play a pivotal role in cultivating analytical skills, scientific reasoning, and habits of lifelong learning, ultimately preparing future physicians to contribute to medical advancement and improve patient care [5,6].
Research training at the undergraduate level enriches educational experiences, fosters evidence-based clinical competencies, and is vital for developing clinician-scientists capable of advancing both patient care and medical innovation [1,7]. Early and longitudinal integration of research education within undergraduate medical curricula has been associated with a higher likelihood of continued scholarly activity after graduation [8,9]. It also enhances academic productivity, bridges the gap between theoretical knowledge and clinical application, and strengthens students’ foundation for academic and professional success [10]. Research participation further fosters critical thinking, research skills, and the development of a mindset that extends into professional practice [11,12].
The positive impact of research engagement is reflected across multiple domains. For patients, clinician involvement in research improves the quality of care by facilitating the application of evidence-based findings into practice [7]. For medical trainees, research experience sharpens critical thinking, strengthens clinical reasoning, and broadens professional opportunities [13]. Active participation in research has also been shown to significantly improve students’ appreciation for research education, emphasizing the importance of experiential learning in shifting perceptions and building research confidence [14–16]. Moreover, engagement in research activities cultivates transferable skills such as communication, teamwork, and resilience, which are essential for clinical practice and leadership in healthcare settings [17]. In response to these recognized benefits, many medical schools globally have introduced structured research curricula to ensure that students acquire essential research competencies during their undergraduate training [10]. Similarly, in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, efforts to integrate research training into medical curricula are increasingly visible [18,19]. However, challenges such as limited mentorship and insufficient institutional support continue to constrain student engagement in research activities [7,20–22].
Despite these advances, important gaps remain in understanding how longitudinal research training influences students’ engagement, attitudes, and perceived professional readiness beyond isolated research experiences [23]. Understanding students’ experiences and perceptions is essential for informing curriculum design and optimizing research training effectiveness [24]. Furthermore, while structured research curricula aim to foster competence and engagement, students may continue to encounter practical challenges in conducting research [25]. Understanding these barriers is essential for promoting resilient research engagement and tailoring educational strategies effectively [26,27]. Recent studies have shown that active participation in research significantly improves students’ appreciation for research education [28,29], highlighting the critical role of experiential learning in shifting perceptions, enhancing research confidence, and strengthening long-term engagement with research activities [30]. These findings underscore the need to investigate how experiential, longitudinal research programs impact medical students’ research attitudes and competencies. To address this gap, the present study aims to explore the perceived impact and barriers of a longitudinally embedded research curriculum on undergraduate medical students’ attitudes, orientation, and engagement with research at Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences (MBRU) in Dubai Health, Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE). It also examines how structured, early exposure to research supports the development of evidence-based competencies and informs the integration of research within undergraduate medical curricula.
2. Methodology
2.1. Educational setting and curriculum overview
This cross-sectional study was conducted at the College of Medicine (CoM), MBRU, an undergraduate medical university established in 2016. The first Cohort enrolled in the same year and graduated in June 2022. The CoM offers a six-year undergraduate Doctor of Medicine (MD) program comprising 12 semesters and structured into three distinct phases (Table 1).
The initial two phases of the program, Phase 1 (Year 1) and Phase 2 (Years 2 and 3), focused on cultivating a robust grounding in biomedical sciences. Coursework encompassed key domains in medicine such as biochemistry, anatomy, pathology, pharmacology, microbiology, research methodology, and biostatistics, alongside other core pre-clinical subjects [31,32]. The pre-clinical courses were thoughtfully structured to scaffold the cognitive and analytical skills for transition into Phase 3 (Years 4–6), which centered on hands-on clinical clerkship training across a diverse healthcare landscape in the UAE. The MD curriculum was designed using spiral framework, allowing iterative exposure to key concepts at increasing degrees of complexity, thereby deepening the student’s understanding and promoting knowledge and skills acquisition across the continuum of the program [33].
2.2. Structure, phases, and assessment of the integrated research curriculum
In the first two phases of the MD program, MBRU established research as a core pillar of medical education by embedding a longitudinal research curriculum consisting of five courses delivered over the first five consecutive semesters of the preclinical years (Years 1–3), totaling 9 credit hours. These included Fundamentals of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (FEB) 1 and 2, Research Methods (RM) 1 and 2, and Research Project (RP) (Table 1) [30]. The foundational phase of this curriculum began in the first semester of Year 1 with courses FEB1 and FEB2. At this stage, students typically had no prior exposure to research. This phase was to introduce students to the basic principles of research methodology and biostatistics, delivered through brief lectures and reinforced through case-based learning [34], small group activities [35], and active learning strategies [36].
In Phase 2, during Semester 3 (course RM1), students began intermediate research training by selecting a research project from a curated list of faculty-proposed topics that included a short description of the project and corresponding supervisor. All topics were pre-reviewed by a dedicated committee to ensure feasibility within the curriculum timeline and alignment with academic standards. Students met with the potential supervisors to discuss the scope of the projects before selecting their research topic and supervisor. In Semester 4 (course RM2), students transition to applied, student-led research under the mentorship of MBRU faculty and affiliated faculty across academic, clinical, and allied health disciplines (Table 1). These projects span diverse areas, including laboratory research, clinical studies, and socio-behavioral research in health professions education, with a focus on project planning, data collection, and critical thinking skills as they engage in independent research work.
In Phase 2, during Semester 5 (course RP), the final course of the research curriculum, students consolidated their research experience and brought their project to completion. This stage marked the culmination of the five integrated research courses embedded within the broader programmatic assessment framework at MBRU (Table 1) [37]. Students were required to complete a dissertation in the format of a peer-reviewed scientific manuscript and present their findings as conference-style posters. Across the five courses, students engaged in all stages of the research process including literature review, formulation of research questions, study protocol development, Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, data collection and analysis, and scientific manuscript preparation. These activities were designed to support scholarly identity and enhance research literacy among graduating medical students [38].
Student assessment across the five integrated research courses was aligned with course learning objectives and comprised both formative and summative components (Table 1). Formative assessment in all semesters included written assignments, while summative assessments contributed to students’ grade point average (GPA). Summative assessment was continuous across the curriculum. In the first three courses (FEB1, FEB2, RM1), summative assessment consisted of an open-book midterm examination and an end-of-term examination (Table 1). In Semester 4 (course RM2), summative assessment included a midterm examination, submission of a research proposal, an oral presentation, and supervisor evaluation of student performance. The research proposal and oral presentation were double-graded by independent faculty members using predefined rubrics. In Semester 5 (course RP), assessment included supervisor evaluation of students’ performance, evaluation of the research dissertation, and a poster presentation delivered in a university conference setting; the research dissertation and poster presentation were also double-graded using standardized rubrics by two independent faculty members (Table 1). This approach ensured objectivity, consistency, and reliability.
During the clinical years (Years 4–6), students were expected to extend and apply the research competencies acquired during the preclinical phase through practical activities such as critical appraisal of literature, conducting clinical audits, and participating in scholarly projects (Table 1). This alignment between preclinical and clinical phases ensured continuity in skill development and facilitated the application of evidence-based principles in real-world clinical settings. Students built on their earlier training by engaging in formulating research questions, selecting suitable methodologies, and contributing to quality improvement efforts [39].
2.3. Research curriculum design and educational theories
Instead of being offered as a standalone track, this research curriculum was embedded within the broader MD program, ensuring that undergraduate medical students were introduced to research principles early in their medical education. At the start of each semester (Semesters 3, 4, and 5), students and supervisors received structured supervision guidelines, including briefings, templates, and a timeline outlining SRP objectives, key deliverables, and the roles and responsibilities of both students and supervisors. To further support students, a weekly student research clinic provided individualized guidance throughout the academic year.
An introductory session at the beginning of Semester 3 oriented students to the structure, expectations, and assessment procedures of the SRP, which was delivered through three longitudinal research courses (RM1, RM2, RP) (Table 2). The research curriculum, developed using a design-based research approach [40], was grounded in Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory [41] and the principles of social constructionism [42]. These frameworks emphasize experiential, reflective, and interactive learning and informed the design through iterative, practice-based opportunities aimed at fostering critical thinking, reflective practice, and applied research skills. The frameworks were operationalized through guided research tasks embedded across the curriculum. For example, students applied taught epidemiology, biostatistics and research concepts by formulating research questions, critically appraising the literature, and collecting and analysing data using SPSS statistical software package. This was followed by structured feedback and collaborative discussions with peers and faculty.
Research competencies were progressively scaffolded across the five research courses to support the development of transferable skills essential for evidence-based medicine and scholarly inquiry [43]. While publication in peer-reviewed journals was encouraged, it was not required for course completion, allowing students to focus on developing foundational research skills.
2.4. Study design
This study represents the second part of a larger research project evaluating the longitudinal research curriculum at MBRU. The first part, reported by Otaki et al (2023) [30], used a convergent mixed-methods design to examine undergraduate medical students’ journey through the mandatory five-integrated research module. Thematic analysis generated four sequential themes describing how students integrated the scientific research method: (1) Attend–Acquire, (2) Accumulate–Assimilate, (3) Apply–Appreciate, and (4) Articulate–Affect. Quantitative analysis identified two distinct GPA clusters (p < 0.01). In addition, joint display analysis integrating qualitative and quantitative findings informed the development of the 8A-Model [30]. Part 1 study highlighted the importance of embedding experiential research modules in medical curricula. Building on this foundation, the current study (Part 2) conducted a psychometric evaluation of students’ perceptions using exploratory factor analysis. Part 3, currently in progress, will examine students’ research productivity and identify potential enablers and barriers to sustained scholarly activity.
2.5. Eligibility criteria
Eligible participants were undergraduate medical students enrolled in the MD program at MBRU who had successfully completed all five integrated, longitudinal research courses delivered during the pre-clinical phase of the curriculum (Table 1). At the time of data collection, this included students from Cohorts 2022–2026. Students who had not completed all five integrated research courses at the time of data collection were excluded.
2.6. Survey instrument design, administration, and data collection
A criterion-based sampling strategy [44] was employed to recruit medical students who had completed all five research modules. Eligible students were invited to participate via their institutional MBRU email accounts, and the survey link was distributed electronically using Microsoft Forms. Prior to completing the survey, participants received an information sheet outlining the study’s purpose, its voluntary nature, and a maximum completion time of ten minutes. Participant recruitment took place from 01/09/2023, following institutional review board approval and students’ return from summer break, to 30/06/2024, during which the survey was sent to all eligible students and periodic reminders were issued to maximise response rates. The survey was self-administered, a format that reduces the potential for interviewer or facilitator bias and helps ensure more objective responses [45]. No identifiable personal data was collected, ensuring participant anonymity. This observational study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki [46].
A survey instrument consisting of 45 items was developed for this study. It was designed to assess students’ perceptions, attitudes, and engagement with research, including perceived barriers and the impact of structured, longitudinal research training on the development of evidence-based competencies. The instrument included demographic variables such as age, gender, country of citizenship, and graduating cohort, as well as open-ended (free-text) questions. The core of the instrument comprised 31 items measured using a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree). These Likert-scale items were designed to capture students’ perceptions of research within a competency-based framework, along with their experiences related to research projects, publications, and scholarly outputs. Importantly, our study did not use a completely self-designed questionnaire, rather, it was adapted from a previously validated Likert-scale instrument [47] to ensure alignment with the specific context and objectives of our longitudinal research curriculum. To ensure appropriateness of our setting, content validity [48] was further established through independent expert review by three medical education faculty members, who provided structured feedback on clarity, relevance, and alignment with curricular goals. Based on their feedback, items were revised to improve comprehension, and construct consistency. The survey constructs were categorized into five domains: 1) Perceived relevance of research for professional development, exploring how students view research as a tool for career advancement; 2) Barriers to research confidence and resilience, identifying perceived obstacles such as time constraints or lack of mentorship; these reflect students’ subjective views rather than those of the institution; 3) Positive orientation toward research, assessing intrinsic motivators for research engagement; 4) Perceived necessity of research in academic and professional practice, examining the perceived value of research for medical training and career goals; and 5) Practical challenges in conducting and communicating research, addressing difficulties students face in disseminating scholarly work.
Data was collected over a six-month period from January 1 to June 30, 2024. At the time of data collection, two cohorts (2022 and 2023) had already graduated from the program and were considered recent alumni, while the remaining students were still enrolled in the clinical phase of the six-year undergraduate medical program. This meant that the lag time between research module completion and survey administration ranged from a minimum of approximately six months (Cohort 2026) to a maximum of about five years (Cohort 2022).
2.7. Data analysis
The MD program at MBRU has a diverse study population [49]. The survey was disseminated to the entire population (N = 229) across five cohorts. Respondents’ demographics were compared with institutional data to assess consistency with the broader population. To assess the adequacy of the sample, we referred to the meta-analysis by Wu et al. (2022) [50], which reported an average online survey response rate of 44%. Given our entire population of 229 students across five cohorts (2022–2026), an expected of 101 responses would be adequate. Reliability and internal consistency were assessed by calculating Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the overall survey and each subscale, with values of ≥ 0.70 considered acceptable for reliability [51]. Sampling adequacy was further examined using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test [52], and data suitability was confirmed by Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity [53].
Descriptive statistics were used to summarize demographic data and Likert-scale responses, and an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) with principal component extraction was conducted to identify underlying constructs within the survey. Factor loadings ≥ 0.50 were considered acceptable for retention [47]. All statistical analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 29.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
2.8. Ethical approval
The study was approved by the relevant MBRU Institutional Review Board (Reference #MBRU IRB-2023–54) and by the Dubai Scientific Research Ethics Committee (DSREC), Dubai Health Authority (DSREC-06/2024_17). Prior to commencement of the study, all participants provided fully informed written electronic consent, confirming their voluntary participation and right to withdraw at any time without providing a reason. No minors were included in this study.
3. Results
3.1. Survey response rate, validity, and reliability analysis
The survey was disseminated online to the entire population of 229 undergraduate medical students (Cohort 2022–2026), and 106 completed the survey, yielding a response rate of 46.3%. This aligns with the average online survey response rate of 44% reported by Wu et al. (2022) [50], supporting the adequacy of the sample for analysis. Construct validity of the 31-item Likert scale was supported by an overall Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy (MSA) value of 0.853 (range 0.766 to 0.902), along with a highly significant Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (P < 0.0001), indicating that the data were suitable for factor analysis (Table 3).
Reliability analysis showed good internal consistency for the overall instrument, with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α) of 0.801 (range 0.576 to 0.902) (Table 3). At the factor level, internal consistency ranged from acceptable to excellent: ‘Positive orientation toward research’ (α = 0.902), followed by ‘Practical challenges in conducting and communicating research (α = 0.842), ‘Perceived relevance of research for professional development’ (α = 0.791), ‘Barriers to research confidence and resilience’ (α = 0.761), and ‘Perceived necessity of research in academic and professional practice’ (α = 0.576). These findings reinforce the robustness of the survey instrument in assessing students’ attitudes towards research.
3.2. Exploratory factor analysis
EFA revealed five distinct categories: 1) Perceived relevance of research for professional development; 2) Barriers to research confidence and resilience; 3) Positive orientation toward research; 4) Perceived necessity of research in academic and professional practice; and 5) Practical challenges in conducting and communicating research (Table 3). Most items show factor loadings above 0.50, indicating strong correlations with their respective factors. The factor ‘Positive orientation toward research’ accounted for the largest proportion of explained variance (67.8%), highlighting its central role in explaining students’ perceptions of research.
3.3. Demographic characteristics
In our study, 106 students responded to the survey (Table 4). At the time of the survey, the total number of enrolled Cohorts was five, with the Cohort of 2022 representing the first graduating Cohort and the Cohort of 2026 the most recent. The number of respondents per Cohort ranged from 12 (Cohort of 2023) to 33 (Cohort of 2026). Most respondents were female 72 (67.9%), with 34 (32.1%) males. The mean age was 23 years (SD = 1.8). In terms of nationality, 38 (35.8%) students were UAE nationals and 68 (64.2%) were non-UAE nationals. Overall, the sample reflected the MD program’s demographic composition in terms of gender, age, and nationality. Most respondents 102 (96.2%) were pursuing their first undergraduate medical degree at MBRU. In terms of productivity in research, 44 (41.5%) of students reported having completed and published at least one article, including 28 (26.4%) who have published two or more. Additionally, 68 (64.1%) reported having at least one article under revision or in preparation. All 106 students (100.0%) presented at least one research poster, including 66 (62.3%) who presented two or more. Also, 74 (69.8%) delivered at least one oral presentation since joining MBRU. Notably, one-third of students, 35 (33%), reported receiving at least one research award, reflecting engagement in competitive research activities. Additional analysis showed that the first graduating cohort (Cohort 2022) did contribute more to research productivity, due to the longer lag time between research module completion and survey administration.
3.4. Students’ perception of research importance
Students’ perceptions across five categories were explored: perceived relevance, research barriers, positive orientation, perceived necessity, and dissemination challenges (Table 5).
3.4.1 Perceived relevance of research for professional development.
The seven items in the perceived relevance for professional domain yielded an overall mean score of 40.30 (SD = 4.55), corresponding to 85.7% of the maximum score, which falls within the ‘Agree’ range in the Likert scale (Table 5). Notably, 4 out of the 7 items were rated between ‘Agree and ‘Strongly Agree’. The highest-rated item was ‘students should be informed about the clinical and translational significance of research’ with a mean (SD) of 6.55 (0.78), or 93.6%. This was followed by ‘students should receive training on designing and conducting research’ with a mean (SD) of 6.54 (1.02), or 93.4%. The item ‘research is essential for evolving into an evidence-based medical practitioner’ received a mean (SD) of 6.37 (1.04), or 91.0%, while ‘research will contribute to the advancement of my professional clinical career’ had a mean (SD) of 6.29 (1.27), or 89.9%. These data indicate students’ strong support for the role of research in their clinical and professional development, particularly in becoming competent, evidence-based practitioners.
3.4.2 Barriers to research confidence and resilience.
Regarding barriers to research confidence and resilience, this domain yielded an overall mean score of 21.41 (SD = 6.46), or 61.2% of the maximum possible score. This falls within the ‘Neutral to Somewhat Agree’ range and indicates moderate concern regarding research-related stress and uncertainty (Table 5). Most items were rated between ‘Neutral to Somewhat Agree’ range in the Likert scale. The highest-rated item was ‘I worry about making mistakes that could affect the validity of my findings’, with a mean (SD) of 4.93 (1.77), corresponding to 70.4% of the maximum score. This was followed by ‘conducting research and publishing for career advancement are stressful’ 4.81 (1.73), 68.7%, and ‘analysing research data causes me stress and anxiety’ 4.38 (1.83), 62.6%. In contrast, lower mean scores were observed for ‘research can have a negative impact on my wellbeing’ 3.70 (1.88), 52.9%, and ‘I feel anxious and scared when designing or conducting research’ 3.58 (1.82), 51.1%. Overall, these findings suggest that while students did not report high levels of research-related stress, the variability in responses indicates that some experience uncertainty or lack confidence.
3.4.3 Positive orientation toward research.
Meanwhile, the six items in the positive orientation toward research domain yielded an overall mean score of 37.62 (SD = 5.69), corresponding to 89.6% of the maximum possible score, falling within the ‘Agree to Strongly Agree’ range on the Likert scale (Table 5). Each item reflected consistently high levels of agreement. The highest-rated statement was ‘I am interested in conducting and developing my own research projects’, with a mean score of 6.42 (SD=1.05), or 91.7%. This was closely followed by ’I am willing to commit time to a research project including study design, data collection, analysis, and write-up’, received a mean score of 6.35 (SD = 1.06), or 90.7%. Overall, the data indicate strong student engagement and a strong interest in research, also a clear willingness to actively participate in the full spectrum of research activities.
3.4.4 Perceived necessity of research in academic and professional practice.
Regarding the academic and professional relevance of research, this domain yielded an overall mean score of 37.14 (SD = 5.98), corresponding to 75.8% of the maximum possible score, which falls within the ‘Somewhat Agree to Agree’ range (Table 5). Five out of the seven items were rated within this range, with the highest-rated statement being ‘Research training is an essential part of my professional clinical training’ with a mean (SD) of 6.20 (1.32) or 88.6%. In contrast, the item ‘Research is not a key component for me to perform my responsibilities in my current professional career’ received the lowest mean score, 2.97 (SD = 1.77) or 42.4%, falling within the ‘Somewhat Disagree’ range. These data indicate that most students view research as a relevant part of clinical education and professional development. However, the observed variability in responses suggests that a smaller proportion of students remain uncertain about its necessity for their future careers.
3.4.5 Practical challenges in conducting and communicating research.
The final category assessed the practical challenges undergraduate medical students face in conducting and disseminating research. The six items in this domain yielded an overall mean score of 25.70 (SD = 7.6), corresponding to 61.2% of the maximum possible score, which falls within the ‘Neutral to Somewhat Agree’ range (Table 5). The highest-rated item was ‘Research is a complex and complicated activity’ at 5.54 (SD = 1.31), or 79.1% of the maximum possible score, followed by ‘I face challenges when analyzing research data, especially statistical analysis’, at 4.97 (SD = 1.76), or 71.0%. The lowest mean (SD) of 3.07 (1.90), or 43.9%, was observed for the item ‘I did not have adequate training to initiate my research design’. These findings suggest that while students experience some difficulties during the early stages of research, data analysis, particularly statistical interpretation, emerges as a more consistent challenge.
4. Discussion
4.1. Key findings
Our study explored undergraduate medical students’ perceptions of research following the completion of an integrated, mandatory longitudinal research curriculum at our medical university in Dubai, Dubai Health, UAE [30]. Overall, students reported a positive attitude towards the importance of conducting research and recognized its relevance to their professional and academic careers. However, they also highlighted several challenges, particularly in research dissemination and those related to resilience and balancing research output with academic coursework. This observation suggests that while our students value research, they may still face challenges integrating it alongside their academic responsibilities.
One of the most prominent themes observed in our findings relates to how students perceive the role of research and its relevance to their professional development. Specifically, students consistently emphasized the importance of structured research training and early exposure to learning the research process as part of their undergraduate medical training. They also perceived research as highly relevant to their future clinical practice and research careers. This aligns with prior findings suggesting that early research involvement among medical students significantly increases the likelihood of continued scientific productivity post-graduation and is strongly associated with a sustained interest in academic career pathways [6,9,54,55]. In addition, studies by Murdoch-Eaton et al. [56] and Burgoyne et al. [57] have also highlighted the importance of research skills in enhancing employability and career prospects. While long-term outcomes are yet to be established in our current cohort of medical students, their early recognition of the value of research practices suggests that our curriculum could serve as a precursor to sustained scholarly activity and ongoing professional development [19]. Beyond career advancement, students also acknowledged that research participation not only improved their clinical and research practice but also helped improve their communication and social skills, which are essential for practicing clinicians. Prior studies echo this, demonstrating that research engagement enhances transferable skills such as teamwork, time management, and critical thinking [57].
While students acknowledged the importance of research to advance their future careers, they did not always view their experience as entirely seamless and stress-free. Interestingly, feelings of research-related anxiety and pressure were reported. This could be attributed to the nature of frequent and often stressful academic obligations during medical students’ training [58]. The reported variability of responses in our study may relate to a lack of immediate visibility of impact; the interplay between recognizing research value and experiencing research-related stress suggests a need for better scaffolding and psychological support during the research process training [59]. Institutional strategies such as peer mentoring, dedicated faculty-led research support clinics, and a balanced approach that reduces emphasis on publication as an endpoint while maintaining scholarly motivation can help alleviate performance pressure. These strategies are already actively implemented and continuously strengthened at our institution.
In parallel with concerns about confidence in conducting research, a strong and positive orientation toward research was also observed, with students expressing a high degree of interest in initiating independent projects beyond the formal curriculum. This finding reflects intrinsic motivation [60] and is consistent with published data from Kaur et al. [61], suggesting that students tend to be satisfied following the completion of a mandatory research course, particularly those who manage to publish their paper in a peer-reviewed journal. This phenomenon aligns with the ‘motivation theory’ [62], which suggests that successful experiences fuel continued participation and enthusiasm. In the context of our study, this applies to research endeavors. Students also agreed that research is beneficial for most medical students. One of the main factors may be due to the increasing competitiveness of residency applications, as research experience is often considered an advantage [63]. Notably, a study that sought to investigate the potential factors behind why medical students choose to pursue research during their medical school training found that the primary motivation was the desire to enhance their residency prospects and chances of matching into competitive specialties [64]. More recently, an increasing number of medical residency program directors are affirming the importance of research literacy in future resident applicants, as it demonstrates commitment to academic excellence and is an indicator of a physician’s ability to initiate and complete an independent project, potentially towards the publication stage [7].
Beyond personal motivation and emotional experience, students also demonstrated a clear understanding of the perceived necessity of research in academic and professional practice. Their responses reflect the consistent view that research constitutes a vital element of clinical training and is integral to fulfilling professional and clinical responsibilities [6]. This perception may stem from their early exposure (as early as Year 1) to a curriculum that explicitly emphasizes the important role of physicians to remain up to date with evolving medical literature and incorporate new findings of evidence-based medicine into their clinical practice [65]. A structured research curriculum that integrates theoretical instruction with practical hands-on project experience provides students with a robust foundation in scientific inquiry and critical appraisal [66]. This approach underpins the design and delivery of our program. The findings of our study indicate that students recognize the advantages of early research engagement, particularly in cultivating the analytical and reflective skills necessary for becoming a well-rounded and competent physician [67]. The longitudinal research module at MBRU was strategically integrated into the preclinical phase of the MD curriculum to provide students with structured, early exposure to research principles and practices. Results from the exploratory factor analysis and perception data indicate that students highly valued this early engagement, with strong agreement on items related to the role of research in clinical reasoning, communication skills, and the development of evidence-based competencies. These findings reinforce the importance of embedding research training early in undergraduate medical education and offer empirical support for the continued integration of research-focused learning outcomes into the broader curriculum.
4.2. Curriculum improvement
While students valued formal training to engage in research projects, they also highlighted several practical challenges that may impede their research output, particularly with respect to dissemination and biostatistical literacy. Although many expressed confidence in writing manuscripts, a substantial number of students struggled in analyzing research data, especially when it came to statistical analysis. This is consistent with previous studies highlighting statistical analysis as one of the most difficult aspects of research for medical students [68]. Windish et al. [69] found that many medical students had limited confidence in interpreting statistical results, which hindered their ability to critically appraise the literature and conduct independent research. Similarly, Cam Ha et al. [70] reported that students who struggled with biostatistics were less likely to engage in research activities. This study also observed that students who reported a greater interest in learning more about biostatistics and an increased knowledge of manipulation of statistics were more likely to experience an increased inclination toward a research career. Due to the time constraints that medical students face [71], research curricula should place greater emphasis on statistical training. Consequently, a study by Siemens et al. [72] investigating students’ attitudes toward research, found that only 15% of students felt that there was sufficient training in research methodology and statistical analysis in medical school. Improving statistical literacy among medical students is, therefore, a critical component of fostering research engagement. Lastly, the process of conducting research and understanding the nuanced distinctions between various study designs remains a critical area of discussion in undergraduate medical education, particularly when navigating methodological frameworks, statistical interpretation, and ethical considerations [73]. To address this, medical institutions should actively work on incorporating strategies to mitigate the underlying complexity of research training and provide scaffolded and iterative training opportunities for medical students across the program.
Taken together, these findings suggest that strengthening undergraduate research curricula requires attention not only to formal research training, but also to how students are supported in developing confidence and competence in applying research skills, particularly in biostatistics and data interpretation. Embedding scaffolded and iterative opportunities for statistical learning, alongside structured guidance for research dissemination, may help align curricular expectations with students’ developmental needs. Such approaches may support sustained engagement in research while reducing barriers related to confidence, workload, and methodological complexity.
4.3. Strengths and limitations
A key strength of our study is its focus on a well-characterized sample of medical students across multiple cohorts (in preclinical and clinical phases), all of whom completed a multi-year, longitudinal research curriculum at our institution. This allowed for a comprehensive exploration of students’ perceptions across different stages of their medical training. The internal consistency of the survey domains and the robust statistical factor analysis conducted further support the validity of our findings. Furthermore, the thoughtful design, implementation, and delivery of our research curriculum, grounded in experiential learning theory [74] and scaffolded over multiple semesters, reflects best pedagogical practices in health profession education. The inclusion of allocated and protected hours, structured supervision, and outcome-focused assessments forms a model for embedding scholarship training within undergraduate medical education, which other institutions might want to adapt. A methodological consideration in this study is the modest sample size, which was constrained by the fact that the survey was distributed to the entire student population; increasing the sample was therefore not feasible. Traditional guidelines recommend subject-to-variable ratios of 5:1–10:1 for exploratory factor analysis [75,76], with 106 respondents for 31 items, our ratio of 3.4:1 falls below these conventional benchmarks. Nonetheless, psychometric indices (including KMO values, Cronbach’s alpha, and factor loadings) indicated strong internal consistency and suitability for factor analysis. Prior methodological studies have also demonstrated that smaller samples can yield acceptable factor solutions under certain conditions, particularly when communalities are high and loadings are strong [77,78]. On this basis, the current findings can be considered exploratory but still provide meaningful insights for curriculum evaluation.
Nevertheless, our study has limitations. The findings are based on a single institution and rely on cross-sectional, self-reported data, which limits the generalizability of our study [79] and may be subject to recall [80] and social desirability biases [81]. While our study provides valuable insight into student engagement and perceptions, it does not capture long-term behavioral or career outcomes, which would provide a more complete understanding of the curriculum’s impact. Moreover, with the absence of a baseline or control group, it is challenging to attribute outcomes solely to the longitudinal integrated research curriculum. Despite these limitations, the study offers valuable insights into students’ perceptions of a distinctive longitudinal, competency-based research module, supported by strong psychometric indices. As with all self-reported surveys, the possibility of careless responses cannot be excluded, although the consistency indices suggest reliability. Replication in larger cohorts or across institutions would strengthen the stability of these findings. These concerns are consistent with the broader challenges identified in medical education research, as reported by Cook and Artino [82], who stress the importance of considering psychological and contextual factors that influence learner behavior and self-reporting accuracy. In particular, the increasing emphasis on research engagement as a marker of medical residency competitiveness may consciously or unconsciously encourage inflated self-assessments of motivation, confidence, and productivity. This potential inflation, shaped by institutional culture and perceived expectations, highlights the need for cautious interpretation of self-reported outcomes in studies of this nature.
4.4. Implications for future research
To build on the current findings, future research should adopt longitudinal and mixed-methods study designs to examine how structured research training programs might influence medical students’ engagement, confidence, and scholarly output across a period of time. Integrating qualitative approaches, such as interviews or focus groups, could also provide a deeper understanding of how students internalize research experiences and overcome barriers to participation. Hart et al. [83] suggest that transformative learning models benefit from ongoing reflection and contextual relevance, which future studies could explore in diverse academic settings. Furthermore, examining faculty mentorship, institutional culture, and curriculum design using established frameworks such as those discussed by Benbassat [84], and Kaufman and Mann [85] can help identify scalable strategies for embedding research education within medical training. Broadly speaking, aligning future scientific inquiries with robust theoretical underpinnings will be critical in refining the role of research training in undergraduate medical education.
5. Conclusion
Our study affirms the value of structured research training, early exposure to research activities, and effective mentorship in fostering confidence, resilience, and positive attitudes toward research among undergraduate medical students. By embedding a mandatory longitudinal research module that actively engages students in the research process, the curriculum responds to calls within medical education to strengthen research literacy and evidence-based competencies. Further contributing to the limited regional evidence on integrated, compulsory research training. Importantly, students continued to engage in research activities during their subsequent clinical training, suggesting sustained research engagement beyond course completion. Together, these findings may inform ongoing local curriculum refinement and support the design of similar initiatives in other educational contexts.
Supporting information
S1 File. Raw data supporting the findings of this study.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0343409.s001
(XLSX)
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Professor Jeyaseelan Lakshmanan for being part of the integrated research curriculum at the College of Medicine, MBRU.
References
- 1.
Krüger S. Embedding student research in the undergraduate curriculum: Learning in the field. 2015.
- 2. Savoca M, Kernan K, Scott C, Bugallo M. Early exposure to STEM research as a foundational experience for STEM careers. ELTHE. 2023;6(1):46–55.
- 3. Carnell B. Towards a connected curriculum in architectural education: research-based education in practice. Charrette. 2017;4(1):14–26.
- 4.
Mieg HA, Ambos E, Brew A, Galli D, Lehmann J. The Cambridge handbook of undergraduate research: Cambridge University Press; 2022.
- 5. Dereski MO. Medical student research: Program structure, feedback, and outcomes at a new medical school. MedSciEduc. 2016;26(2):255–62.
- 6. Bhuiya T, Makaryus AN. The importance of engaging in scientific research during medical training. Int J Angiol. 2023;32(3):153–7. pmid:37576537
- 7. Mokhtari B, Badalzadeh R, Ghaffarifar S. The next generation of physician-researchers: Undergraduate medical students’ and residents’ attitudes, challenges, and approaches towards addressing them. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1):1313. pmid:39543546
- 8. Imamura T, Narang N, Kinugawa K. Earlier first publication is associated with more future publication. Int Heart J. 2023;64(5):870–4. pmid:37704404
- 9. Waaijer CJF, Ommering BWC, van der Wurff LJ, van Leeuwen TN, Dekker FW, NVMO Special Interest Group on Scientific Education. Scientific activity by medical students: The relationship between academic publishing during medical school and publication careers after graduation. Perspect Med Educ. 2019;8(4):223–9. pmid:31290118
- 10. Unnikrishnan B, Rekha T, Jain A, Mithra P, Kumar N, Holla R. Integrating research into undergraduate medical education curriculum: A 20-year experience from a medical school in coastal South India. Indian J Community Med. 2022;47(4):479–82. pmid:36742976
- 11. Carberry C, McCombe G, Tobin H, Stokes D, Last J, Bury G, et al. Curriculum initiatives to enhance research skills acquisition by medical students: A scoping review. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21(1):312. pmid:34078364
- 12.
Htay MNN, Sahoo S, Moe S, Abas ABL. Application of educational theories in undergraduate medical students’ research training. 2023.
- 13.
Wang B, Yang L, Gong Z. Early scientific research training links to the innovation ability of medical undergraduates and postgraduates. Frontiers Media SA. 2024.
- 14. Sawarynski KE, Swanberg SM, Roach VA, Taylor TA, Baxa DM. Fostering early preclinical experiences for developing knowledge, skills, and confidence in key residency competencies through participation in a medical student research training program. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2021;8:23821205211054965. pmid:34820529
- 15. Mahomed S, Ross A, Van Wyk J. Training and assessing undergraduate medical students’ research: Learning, engagement and experiences of students and staff. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. 2021;13(1):e1–8. pmid:33567848
- 16. Shen J, Qi H, Liu G, Li X, Fang Y. The impact of a curriculum-based research training program on medical students’ research productivity and future research interests: a longitudinal study. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1):836. pmid:39095809
- 17. Mass-Hernández LM, Acevedo-Aguilar LM, Lozada-Martínez ID, Osorio-Agudelo LS, Maya-Betancourth JGEM, Paz-Echeverry OA, et al. Undergraduate research in medicine: A summary of the evidence on problems, solutions and outcomes. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022;74:103280. pmid:35127067
- 18. Sayedalamin Z, Almutairi O, Allam H, Alnawwar M, atta H. Integrating research methodology and training into the undergraduate medical curriculum – students’ perspectives of Jeddah and Rabigh Medical Colleges, King Abdulaziz University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Hamdan Medical Journal. 2015.
- 19. Afshar ZS, Esmaeli S, Azhar F, Rathan R. Early exposure to research: its impact on medical students’ educational experience and interest in future research. New Emirates Medical Journal. 2024;5(1):e02506882350255.
- 20. Alyousefi N, Alnojaidi J, Almohsen A, Alghanoum S, Alassiry G, Alsanad L. How do medical students perceive their research experiences and associated challenges?. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2023;14:9–20.
- 21.
Alhashmi SM. The evolution and challenges of healthcare policy and research in the Middle East. Digital healthcare in Asia and Gulf region for healthy aging and more inclusive societies. Elsevier. 2024. 425–45.
- 22. Zahir S, Ahmed D, Khan K, Hamza M, Khan A, Jahan S. Exploring research-related challenges: A comparative analysis of undergraduate medical students and post graduate trainees in Peshawar, Pakistan. Journal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology. 2023;30:2107–14.
- 23. Osman T. Medical students’ perceptions towards research at a Sudanese University. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16(1):253. pmid:27682259
- 24. Imafuku R, Saiki T, Kawakami C, Suzuki Y. How do students’ perceptions of research and approaches to learning change in undergraduate research?. Int J Med Educ. 2015;6:47–55. pmid:25863495
- 25. Nicholson JA, Cleland J, Lemon J, Galley HF. Why medical students choose not to carry out an intercalated BSc: A questionnaire study. BMC Med Educ. 2010;10:25. pmid:20331878
- 26. Ofei-Dodoo S. The importance of basic research knowledge in undergraduate medical education. Kans J Med. 2025;18(1):28–30. pmid:40093778
- 27. Akefe IO, Adegoke VA, Akefe E. Strategic tips to successfully undertake research: a comprehensive roadmap for medical trainees. Postgrad Med J. 2025;101(1196):574–82. pmid:39815988
- 28. Falola A, Ogundipe TO, Ibekwe JP, Esanju D, Asogwa C, Altayib B, et al. Assessing research self-efficacy and attitudes among medical students: A quasi-experimental study evaluating the impact of a structured training program. BMC Med Educ. 2025;25(1):893. pmid:40598110
- 29. Cuschieri A, Cuschieri S. From uncertainty to confidence: Peer-led research and the formation of medical academic identity. IME. 2025;4(2):22.
- 30. Otaki F, AlHashmi D, Khamis AH, Azar AJ. Investigating the evolution of undergraduate medical students’ perception and performance in relation to an innovative curriculum-based research module: A convergent mixed methods study launching the 8A-Model. PLoS One. 2023;18(1):e0280310. pmid:36638127
- 31. Banerjee Y, Tuffnell C, Alkhadragy R. Mento’s change model in teaching competency-based medical education. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(1):472. pmid:31882006
- 32. Otaki F, Zaher S, Du Plessis S, Lakhtakia R, Zary N, Inuwa IM. Introducing the 4Ps model of transitioning to distance learning: A convergent mixed methods study conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS One. 2021;16(7):e0253662. pmid:34264968
- 33. Brauer DG, Ferguson KJ. The integrated curriculum in medical education: AMEE guide no. 96. Med Teach. 2015;37(4):312–22.
- 34. Kaur G, Rehncy J, Kahal KS, Singh J, Sharma V, Matreja PS, et al. Case-based learning as an effective tool in teaching pharmacology to undergraduate medical students in a large group setting. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2020;7:2382120520920640. pmid:32435693
- 35. Burgess A, van Diggele C, Roberts C, Mellis C. Facilitating small group learning in the health professions. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20(Suppl 2):457. pmid:33272270
- 36. Bingen HM, Aamlid HI, Hovland BM, Nes AAG, Larsen MH, Skedsmo K, et al. Use of active learning classrooms in health professional education: A scoping review. Int J Nurs Stud Adv. 2023;6:100167. pmid:38746817
- 37. de Jong LH, Bok HGJ, Schellekens LH, Kremer WDJ, Jonker FH, van der Vleuten CPM. Shaping the right conditions in programmatic assessment: how quality of narrative information affects the quality of high-stakes decision-making. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):409. pmid:35643442
- 38. Conover GM, Monk MB, Nigli S, Awalt A. Early exposure of medical students to a formal research program promotes successful scholarship in a multi-campus medical school. Med Sci Educ. 2024;34(5):1091–103. pmid:39450036
- 39. Ahmadi S-F, Baradaran HR, Ahmadi E. Effectiveness of teaching evidence-based medicine to undergraduate medical students: A BEME systematic review. Med Teach. 2015;37(1):21–30. pmid:25401408
- 40. McKenney S, Reeves TC. Educational design research: Portraying, conducting, and enhancing productive scholarship. Med Educ. 2021;55(1):82–92. pmid:32564385
- 41. Wijnen-Meijer M, Brandhuber T, Schneider A, Berberat PO. Implementing Kolb´s experiential learning cycle by linking real experience, case-based discussion and simulation. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2022;9:23821205221091511. pmid:35592131
- 42. Dong H, Lio J, Sherer R, Jiang I. Some learning theories for medical educators. Med Sci Educ. 2021;31(3):1157–72. pmid:34457959
- 43. Boyle SE, Cotton SC, Myint PK, Hold GL. The influence of early research experience in medical school on the decision to intercalate and future career in clinical academia: A questionnaire study. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17(1):245. pmid:29228999
- 44. Bhardwaj P. Types of sampling in research. J Pract Cardiovasc Sci. 2019;5(3):157.
- 45. Ball HL. Conducting online surveys. J Hum Lact. 2019;35(3):413–7.
- 46. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191–4. pmid:24141714
- 47. Papanastasiou EC. Revised-attitudes toward research scale (R-ATR); A first look at its psychometric properties. Journal of Research in Education. 2014;24(2):146–59.
- 48.
Rusticus S. Content validity. Maggino F. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Cham: Springer International Publishing. 2023. 1384–5.
- 49.
Education UAEM. Renewal of Licensure. Dubai: Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences. 2019.
- 50. Wu M-J, Zhao K, Fils-Aime F. Response rates of online surveys in published research: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior Reports. 2022;7:100206.
- 51.
Nunnally J, Bernstein I. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1994.
- 52. Kaiser HF. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika. 1974;39(1):31–6.
- 53. Bartlett MS. A note on the multiplying factors for various χ2 approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology. 1954;16(2):296–8.
- 54. Armitage CJ, Conner M. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. Br J Soc Psychol. 2001;40(Pt 4):471–99. pmid:11795063
- 55. Naing C, Wai VN, Durham J, Whittaker MA, Win NN, Aung K, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of medical students’ perspectives on the engagement in research. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94(28):e1089. pmid:26181541
- 56. Murdoch-Eaton D, Drewery S, Elton S, Emmerson C, Marshall M, Smith JA, et al. What do medical students understand by research and research skills? Identifying research opportunities within undergraduate projects. Med Teach. 2010;32(3):e152-60. pmid:20218832
- 57. Burgoyne LN, O’Flynn S, Boylan GB. Undergraduate medical research: the student perspective. Med Educ Online. 2010;15:10.3402/meo.v15i0.5212. pmid:20844608
- 58. Jeyapalan T, Blair E. The factors causing stress in medical students and their impact on academic outcomes: A Narrative qualitative systematic review. Int J Med Stud. 2024;12(2):195–203.
- 59. Hawsawi AA, Nixon N, Stewart E, Nixon E. Exploring access to support services for medical students: Recommendations for enhancing wellbeing support. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1):671. pmid:38886747
- 60. Rosenkranz SK, Wang S, Hu W. Motivating medical students to do research: A mixed methods study using Self-Determination Theory. BMC Medical Education. 2015;15:1–13.
- 61. Kaur R, Hakim J, Jeremy R, Coorey G, Kalman E, Jenkin R, et al. Students’ perceived research skills development and satisfaction after completion of a mandatory research project: Results from five cohorts of the Sydney medical program. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23(1):502. pmid:37438817
- 62.
Graham S, Weiner B. Theories and principles of motivation. Handbook of educational psychology. 1996. p. 63–84.
- 63. Hahamyan HA, Vasireddi N, Burns B, Bousquet SA, Gould HP. Increasing Trends in matriculant publications in the residency match: A scoping review. Cureus. 2024;16(10):e72569. pmid:39606496
- 64. Pathipati AS, Taleghani N. Research in medical school: A survey evaluating why medical students take research years. Cureus. 2016;8(8):e741. pmid:27672532
- 65. Bonilla-Escobar FJ, Bonilla-Velez J, Tobón-García D, Ángel-Isaza AM. Medical student researchers in Colombia and associated factors with publication: A cross-sectional study. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17(1):254. pmid:29246229
- 66. Ejaz K, Shamim MS, Shamim MS, Hussain SA. Involvement of medical students and fresh medical graduates of Karachi, Pakistan in research. J Pak Med Assoc. 2011;61(2):115–20. pmid:21375155
- 67. Yuan H-F, Xu W-D, Hu H-Y. Young Chinese doctors and the pressure of publication. Lancet. 2013;381(9864):e4. pmid:23374483
- 68. Yan F, Robert M, Li Y. Statistical methods and common problems in medical or biomedical science research. Int J Physiol Pathophysiol Pharmacol. 2017;9(5):157–63. pmid:29209453
- 69. Windish DM, Huot SJ, Green ML. Medicine residents’ understanding of the biostatistics and results in the medical literature. JAMA. 2007;298(9):1010–22. pmid:17785646
- 70. Ha TC, Ng S, Chen C, Yong SK, Koh GCH, Tan SB, et al. Inclination towards research and the pursuit of a research career among medical students: an international cohort study. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):86. pmid:29716587
- 71. Alduraibi KM, Aldosari M, Alharbi AD, Alkhudairy AI, Almutairi MN, Alanazi NS, et al. Challenges and barriers to medical research among medical students in Saudi Arabia. Cureus. 2024;16(5):e59505. pmid:38826878
- 72. Siemens DR, Punnen S, Wong J, Kanji N. A survey on the attitudes towards research in medical school. BMC Med Educ. 2010;10:4. pmid:20096112
- 73. Alsaleem SA, Alkhairi MAY, Alzahrani MAA, Alwadai MI, Alqahtani SSA, Alaseri YFY, et al. Challenges and barriers toward medical research among medical and dental students at King Khalid University, Abha, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Front Public Health. 2021;9:706778. pmid:34490190
- 74. Yardley S, Teunissen PW, Dornan T. Experiential learning: AMEE Guide No. 63. Med Teach. 2012;34(2):e102-15. pmid:22289008
- 75.
Gorsuch RL. Factor analysis: Classic edition. Routledge. 2014.
- 76.
Tabachnick B, Fidell L. Using multivariate statistics. 7th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1207
- 77. MacCallum RC, Widaman KF, Zhang S, Hong S. Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods. 1999;4(1):84–99.
- 78. de Winter JCF, Dodou D, Wieringa PA. Exploratory factor analysis with small sample sizes. Multivariate Behav Res. 2009;44(2):147–81. pmid:26754265
- 79. Wang X, Cheng Z. Cross-sectional studies: strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations. Chest. 2020;158(1s):S65–71.
- 80. Coughlin SS. Recall bias in epidemiologic studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43(1):87–91. pmid:2319285
- 81. Mondal H, Mondal S. Social desirability bias: A confounding factor to consider in survey by self-administered questionnaire. Indian J Pharmacol. 2018;50(3):143–4. pmid:30166752
- 82. Cook DA, Artino AR. Motivation to learn: An overview of contemporary theories. Med Educ. 2016;50(10):997–1014. pmid:27628718
- 83. Hart EJ, de Heer-Koster MH, van der Harst M, Browne JL, Scheele F. Key tips to shift student perspectives through transformative learning in medical education. BMC Med Educ. 2025;25(1):202. pmid:39920665
- 84.
Benbassat J. Curriculum design, evaluation, and teaching in medical education: recognizing challenges and opportunities. 2024.
- 85. Mann KV. Theoretical perspectives in medical education: Past experience and future possibilities. Med Educ. 2011;45(1):60–8. pmid:21155869