COVIDReady2 study protocol: cross-sectional survey of medical student volunteering and education during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Background
The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has led to global disruption of healthcare. Many students volunteered to provide clinical support. Volunteering to work in a clinical capacity was a unique medical education opportunity; however, it is unknown whether this was a positive learning experience or which volunteering roles were of most benefit to students.
Methods
The COVIDReady2 study is a national cross-sectional study of all medical students at medical schools in the United Kingdom. The primary outcome is to explore the experiences of medical students who volunteered during the pandemic in comparison to those who did not. We will compare responses to determine the educational benefit and issues they faced. In addition to quantitative analysis, thematic analysis will be used to identify themes in qualitative responses.
Discussion
There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that service roles have potential to enhance medical education; yet, there is a shortage of studies able to offer practical advice for how these roles may be incorporated in future medical education. We anticipate that this study will help to identify volunteer structures that have been beneficial for students, so that similar infrastructures can be used in the future, and help inform medical education in a non-pandemic setting.
Trial registration
Not Applicable.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.24.21252103: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Consent: 17 The survey will be preceded by a description of the study, the research question, the contact details of the primary investigator, and a consent form. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis This power calculation was performed with an alpha of 0.05 and a power of 80%. Sex as a biological variable not 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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study …SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.24.21252103: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Consent: 17 The survey will be preceded by a description of the study, the research question, the contact details of the primary investigator, and a consent form. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis This power calculation was performed with an alpha of 0.05 and a power of 80%. Sex as a biological variable not 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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.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.
-
