Assessing knowledge, concerns, and risk perceptions among Italian medical students during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

  1. Manfredi Greco
  2. Elisa Maietti
  3. Flavia Rallo
  4. Chiara Reno
  5. Davide Trerè
  6. Elena Savoia
  7. Maria Pia Fantini
  8. Davide Gori

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

During the first phase of COVID-19 pandemic, Italian medical students transitioned from in-person to remote learning. This study was carried out to early assess students’ sources of information, perceived risk of infection, knowledge and preventive practices in order to resume academic activity. The impact of training and volunteer work was also assessed.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was conducted in May 2020 among medical students enrolled in the School of Medicine and Surgery, Bologna University.

RESULTS

The analysis included 537 responses. On average students used seven sources of information on COVID-19. Scientific journals were considered the most trustworthy but they ranked only 6 th in the frequency of use. Perceived risk of infection was higher for academic activities, especially in the hospital than daily living activities. Less than 50% of students reported being trained on biological risk and use of PPE. Training received was significantly associated with both perceived risk of infection and confidence in the use of PPE. Students engaged in volunteer work had higher confidence in PPE usage.

DISCUSSION

Accessible scientific information and students’ engagement in spreading correct knowledge play an important role in challenging misinformation during the pandemic crisis. Students showed suboptimal knowledge about PPE use, calling for additional training. We found a moderate-high perceived risk of infection that could be mitigated with specific educational programs and by promoting voluntary work. Students’ engagement in public health emergencies (PHE) could potentially be beneficial for their training and as well as for the healthcare system.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.04.21250922: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: The study was approved by the University’s Bioethics Committee on May 11, 2020.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data analyses were conducted using Stata statistical software version 15 (StataCorp. 2017. Stata Statistical
    Stata statistical
    suggested: None
    StataCorp
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)

    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 has some limitations. Results are to be interpreted based on the sample characteristics and cannot be extrapolated to the source population as the response rate was low and lacked representation of students in pre-med courses. The cross-sectional design does not allow us to determine a causal relationship between training and/or volunteer work and the impact of the level of confidence and risk perception. There might have been a selection bias in terms of who participated in the volunteer work and whom received the training compared to who did not. Despite the limitations, we believe these preliminary results highlight important needs and ideas on how to engage medical students during emergencies, and in particular during this pandemic. Lessons learned and implemented solutions: The results of this survey have already been translated and implemented into practical actions. PPE training has been made available for all medical students at the University of Bologna in order to increase their knowledge of and skills to deal with the virus and effects of the pandemic on the healthcare system. This training was mandatory for the students returning to clinical rotations. Furthermore, medical students were engaged in public health outreach efforts, they developed brochures and infographics about personal protective measures addressed to patients, their families, and surrounding communities. These materials were produced in different languages (Italian, English...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).

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

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.02.04.21250922v1 on medRxiv