<p>Medical Students’ Perception of Their Education and Training to Cope with Future Market Trends</p>

Abstract

Medical studies is a very diverse field of education that seeks to prepare students for a rapidly evolving healthcare market. This study presents the findings of a survey about the perception of medical students about whether they receive training in professionalism and management skills and whether their education prepares them to face the evolving market trends. Methods: This was a qualitative study that used descriptive data obtained via an online survey conducted among medical students via WhatsApp. The sample included 500 students from 10 medical schools across the UK. The survey was divided into three parts: The first part contained questions related to professionalism and the training they received at the basic level. The second part contained questions about management and leadership training for the medical field and whether the students thought it was important for their future. The last part contained questions about whether the students thought that their level of education was competitive enough to ensure their survival in the face of future market trends. Results: Most students (77%) thought that training in leadership and management skills was necessary to prepare them for the future market, and 68% felt that they were not receiving satisfactory training in leadership and management skills. The students also felt that they need to be taught more about the market and its various changing features. Finally, the majority (62%) of the students felt that their courses did not focus on social and professional skills. Conclusion: The findings from the survey indicate that there is a clear need for courses on professionalism and management among medical students and that institutes need to keep up with these emerging needs in terms of training.

Misinformation in and about science

“…Intentions are difficult to measure; it is likely that many of these citations are due to honest mistake or laziness rather than deliberate obfuscation. When a paper misrepresents the papers it cites, this can be grounds for retraction (77). A bigger problem arises when one paper is frequently misrepresented by no fault of its own.…”