No abstract

German medical students are not sufficiently introduced to the ethical principles and pitfalls of scientific work. Therefore, a compulsory course on good scientific practice (GSP) has been developed and implemented into the curriculum of medical students, with the goal to foster scientific integrity and prevent scientific misconduct. Students’ knowledge and attitudes towards GSP were evaluated by a pre-post-teaching questionnaire survey (n = 239). Most participants initially had startling knowledge gaps in the field. Moreover, they were not acquainted with core institutions on GSP, the office of ombudsperson and the nationally binding guidelines on GSP. The pre-post-teaching comparison showed statistically significant improvement in all areas tested; moreover, after the course participants confided more trust in GSP institutions. Applying ethical rules into practice can be challenging; therefore, students need to learn to work independently with guidelines on GSP and should be introduced to institutions providing further guidance. As our study has shown, students are very willing to pursue a scientific career based on integrity and honesty, however, they lack the knowledge how to do so. In light of our results, we therefore recommend to integrate courses on GSP already at an early time into the mandatory curriculum of medical students.

Background Peritoneal dialysis (PD) incidence and prevalence in Germany are low compared with hemodialysis (HD), an underachievement with multifactorial causes. Patient perspectives on renal replacement therapy (RRT) choice play a growing role in research. To date, and to the best of our knowledge, the importance of bioethical dimensions in the context of RRT choice has not been analyzed. The aim of this multicenter questionnaire study was to delineate differences in patient perspectives of PD vs HD in terms of bioethical dimensions, thus helping nephrologists target potential PD candidates more efficiently. Methods A total of 121 stable outpatients from 2 tertiary care hospitals and 4 dialysis clinics were surveyed for bioethical dimensions (“autonomy,” “beneficence,” “non-maleficence,” “justice,” and “trust”) with ranking and Likert scale items. Inclusion criteria were RRT > 3 months, age ≥ 18 years, and sufficient cognitive and language skills. Results A surprisingly high percentage of patients felt excluded from the RRT choice process. Peritoneal dialysis patients were more critical of RRT. They used more versatile information sources on RRT, whereas HD patients were mainly informed by their nephrologist. Peritoneal dialysis patients felt more often dissatisfied with RRT than HD patients and had less trust in their co-patients. However, PD patients felt less autonomy impairment regarding body integrity, fluid balance, and dialysis in general. Conclusions Our study demonstrates that PD patients showed more scrutiny of their situation as patients, especially their co-patients. Their treatment empowered them toward feeling more autonomous than HD patients. These new insights into patient perspectives on RRT choice might facilitate modality choice for nephrologists.

No abstract

No abstract