Medical students’ perceptions of learning and working on the COVID-19 frontlines: ‘… a confirmation that I am in the right place professionally’

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.01.21267145: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: This study adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki and the Ethics Commission Northwest and Central Switzerland (EKNZ, Req-2021-00518).
    Consent: Study design: Participation was voluntary and we obtained written informed consent before each interview.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Limitations: This study reports the perspectives of medical students who consented to be interviewed about their experiences working in a novel learning environment. Findings may not necessarily reflect the perspectives of all the medical students who worked at the TTC. As a medical student herself, ZS conducted all interviews to engage her peers in a casual but candid discussion about this topic. Yet, we acknowledge that some participants may have avoided vulnerable issues regarding this unprecedented time of the pandemic. Finally, the interviews were held during the first part of a continuously evolving pandemic. Undoubtedly, this on-going crisis will continue to generate novel adaptations to learning and care that require investigation.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.


    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.