Perceptions, Attitudes, and Barriers of Undergraduate Medical Students Towards Research at Sinnar University, Sudan

Perceptions, Attitudes, and Barriers of Undergraduate Medical Students Towards Research at Sinnar University, Sudan | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Perceptions, Attitudes, and Barriers of Undergraduate Medical Students Towards Research at Sinnar University, Sudan Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Balla, Samer Mohammed Ahmed Balla, Esraa Mohammed Ahmed Balla This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6499038/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Backgrounds : Health research training is an essential element in advanced undergraduate medical education. The study aims to understand perceptions, attitudes, and perceived barriers toward research among medical students as a backbone for integrating adequate research training settings and departments at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Sinnar (FMUS). Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted between December 2023 and February 2024 among undergraduate medical students at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Sinnar. The questionnaire consisted of demographic data, students’ perceptions, attitudes, and barriers. A dataset of 258 medical students was organized, structured, validated, and analyzed using Jamovi 2.4.11 software. The level of statistical significance was defined as P ≤ 0.05. While the data visualization and figures were done with the RStudio version 2023.12.1. Results: A total of 246 questionnaires were included in the study. In general, the most medical students had a positive perception towards research, with a significant difference between academic grades. 80.1% of students show their interest in conducting research. However, more than two-thirds of students (70.7%) had a negative attitude towards research. The most common barriers were a lack of well-equipped laboratory facilities, a lack of supportive staff, and a lack of adequate funding for student research. Conclusion: The majority of the students demonstrated positive perceptions and a high interest in conducting research. However, most medical students exhibited a negative attitude toward research, with significant differences for SMSA activities participants. Sudan Medical students Attitudes Undergraduate research medical education Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Health research and new innovations have been currently guiding improved healthcare services and clinical practice, and play an important role in promoting critical thinking and reasoning skills. ( 1 , 2 ). However, health research training was documented as an essential part of medical education to educate undergraduate medical students ( 3 ). Which allows them to meet accreditation standards and increase their chance of acceptance in highly competitive programs ( 3 , 4 ). By incorporating health research in their educational systems, medical schools promote a pool of researchers, which could fill the void of physician-scientists ( 1 , 5 ). Encouraging a research curriculum during the undergraduate phase is one of the important factors to develop a positive attitude, which enables them to be research-oriented in their future career. Also, research knowledge can help students not participate in practice research by improving their ability to make evidence-based decisions in their clinical life ( 6 ). Despite that, most students are not aware of why research is crucial to health care ( 3 ). Negative attitudes toward research serve as an obstacle to learning, associated with poor performance in research ( 7 ). A study shows medical schools’ attempts to encourage students to take research training during the undergraduate medical education phase remain unsatisfactory ( 8 ). From a student’s view of a study report, the majority of medical students are interested in conducting research, but unfortunately, there are some barriers and hindrances that make them unable ( 8 ). Therefore, it was important to find out their challenges and barriers that faced them in conducting research and try to develop recommendations that may contribute to solving the problems. According to the literature, several studies suggest that lack of supervisor support and research staff, not enough time, inadequate approaches, difficulty publishing research during medical school, limited access to data sources, and scarce infrastructure for research training are the main barriers for medical students ( 9 – 11 ). However, promoting a supportive undergraduate research environment is, therefore, recommended, with the need for medical institutions to focus on the integration of specific research skills and training within all aspects of the undergraduate medical curriculum; it has been emphasized ( 12 ). An initial step in enhancing the undergraduates' role in the medical research field is exploring their underlying potential (knowledge and attitudes) and the anticipated barriers that they might face in practicing research. Unfortunately, a study assessing the curriculum at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Sinnar (FMUS) reports that the first reason for undergraduate students not enhancing their research skills is the unavailability of the research department in the university, with 72.8% of students’ voices ( 13 ). As a result of this assessment study, Sinnar Medical Student Associate (SMSA) initiated an office for research in an attempt to address the shortfalls, training their students in the research methodology, leading students’ research projects, and allowing them to supervise themselves. The present work aimed to assess the perception, attitude, and barriers towards medical research among FMUS undergraduate medical students and to identify factors of motivation and hindrance that may be affecting them. The results will help in establishing an appropriate research environment at the undergraduate level in the medical school. Methods Study design and settings: A cross-sectional study among undergraduate medical students at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Sinnar (FMUS). The study was conducted from December 20th, 2023, to February 25th, 2024. Sinnar University enrolls students from Sudanese or non-Sudanese nationalities, which has more than 900 medical students at the Faculty of Medicine from years 1 to 5, with a study population close to 600 students from the second year and above. Medical school at Sinnar University offers a 5-year program with a problem-based curriculum (PBC), a community-oriented curriculum leading to an MBBS degree. Basic health sciences are the primary focus in the first three years, with gradually increasing exposure to clinical practice over the next two years. Study participants: The study population was undergraduate medical students at FMUS. The inclusion criteria for this study were all undergraduate medical students at the Faculty of Medicine from the 2nd year to the 5th year, either participants or non-participants in SMSA activities. We only excluded 1st year medical students, as they are not yet familiar with research, or students are below 18 years of age. The sample size was calculated using the Krejcie & Morgan formula of known population size: n = X 2 N P(1-P) / e 2 (N-1) + X 2 P(1-P). n: Sample size. X 2 : Chi-square value (at 95% confidence level with a degree of freedom of 1, it's equal to 3.841). N: Population size, which equals 600 students. e 2 : Margin of error square (is equal to (0.05) 2 at 95% confidence level). P: Population proportion = 0.5 Thus, the optimal sample size is equal to 234 students. The selection was done by distributing an online questionnaire via Google Forms survey on private university platforms, explaining to participants the research concept, their freedom to be part of the study, and that the collected data would be used for studying only. The questionnaire was closed in sample size + 10% (258). Study tool : The authors designed a self-administration questionnaire to collect data based on a comprehensive search in literature reviews. The questionnaire comprised 6 main sections with a total of 45 questions, addressing the following: Section I: This section included students' demographics: age, gender, academic year, and whether the student was attending (SMSA) activities. Section II: This section has 4 items aimed at assessing students' perceptions about research using 5-point Likert scale questions that range from 1 to 5 (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). We categorized students' responses to questions into positive as strongly agree and agree on answers with (5, 4 score points, respectively), where negative are these who answer by strongly disagreeing and disagreeing with (1, 2 score points, respectively), and 3 points for neutral answers. Section III: Its goal is to assess students' motivation and hindering factors for research using multiple-choice questions with two pathways: 6 or 8 items. The 6 items are for students who are interested in conducting research and 8 items for those who are uninterested in research, while choice answers mean "Yes" and unchoice mean "No". Section IV: The section was sighted by students' practice attitude in conducting research through 6 items. The participants responded to them using a single-choice answer of either (Yes or No). We scored the 'Yes' answer by 1 point and the 'No' answer by 0 points. Then we determine a positive attitude for those who have above 3 points and a negative one for those who are equal to or below 3 points. Section V: Exploring students’ barriers at university towards research, the questions concerned limitation factors such as labs, databases, facilities of research, and unavailability of staff, etc. Using 13 questions, participants were able to answer these questions by using a 5-point Likert scale. Section VI: The last part was directed at measuring students' awareness of using AI tools in writing research and their impression of its benefit. We are using 3 single-choice questions and one multiple-choice answer (the choice answers mean 'Yes' and non-choice answers mean 'No'). Statistical analysis: The collected data were organized, tabulated, and statistically analyzed using Jamovi version 2.4.11 (3rd generation software based on the 'R' statistical language). The range, mean, and standard deviation were calculated for numerical values. Data visualization and figures were done with the RStudio version 2023.12.1. The number and percentage were calculated for categorical variables, and the independent t-test was used to compare continuous variables with two categories. The Chi-square test was used to determine the relationship between categorical variables; the level of significance was set at p-value ≤ 0.05. Results Demographic characteristics: The questionnaire was answered by 258 students; 12 responses were invalid, and 246 responses were included in the study. The mean age of all students was 22.0 ± 1.38 and ranged from 19 - 25 years old. The majority were female (n = 155, 63.0%). A total of 56.5% of the students were at the preclinical stage, representing the 2nd and 3rd years, while 43.5% of them were in clinical years, which were divided into the 4th and 5th years. Close to one-quarter of the students (23.6%) were enrolled in the SMSA activities, while 76.4% of students didn't participate in it (Table 1). Table 1: The demographic characteristics of the participant. Characteristics N (%) Total n = 246 Age 22.0 ± 1.38 ( 19-25 ) Gender Male 91 (37.0 %) Female 155 (63.0 %) Study year Pre-clinical 2 nd year 72 (29.3 %) 3 th year 67 (27.2 %) Clinical 4 th year 38 (15.4 %) 5 th year 69 (28.0 %) Attend SMSA activities Participants 58 (23.6%) Non- participants 188 (76.4%) Students' Perceptions of Research: The questionnaire included 4 items that addressed the perception of students toward medical research. It was found that the majority of students had a positive perception of the following three items: Is research important to the practice of medicine, should research training be part of the medical curricula, and should submission of a thesis be a requirement for partial fulfillment of the MBBS degrees (95.9%, 86.2%, and 59.8%, respectively), However, most of the students had a negative perception of the last item, with only 37.8% for positive answers; the item was, should having research experience be an important criterion for residency training in medicine after graduation (Table 2). Male, clinical grade, and participants in SMSA activities reported a more positive perception towards medical research as indicated by their scores; the significant difference was reported only between academic grades (p-value 0.039). Table 2: Positive perception responses among students, as well as overall perception score and those stratified by different students’ demographical characteristics. Perception Positive responses Is research important to the practice of medicine? 236 (95.9%) Should research training be part of the medical curricula? 212 (86.2%) Should submission of a thesis be a requirement for partial fulfillment of the MBBS degrees? 147 (59.8%) Should having research experience be an important criterion for residency training in medicine after graduation? 93 (37.8%) Overall score, mean ± SD 3.89 ± 0.634 Stratified by students’ demographical characteristics Mean ± SD P-value Gender Male 3.99 ± 0.624 0.338 Female 3.86 ± 0.635 Academic grade Pre-clinical 3.81 ± 0.621 0.039 clinical 3.98 ± 0.640 Attend in SMSA activities participants 3.94 ± 0.711 0.166 Non- participants 3.86 ± 0.535 Table 2 embedding place. Students’ interest in conducting research: The analysis shows the majority of FMUS students expressed their interest in conducting research with 197 (80.1%) present voices. The primary reason was elevating their professional standing as a clinician, with 66.5%, and secondly, there is essential to select in clinical training programs with 34.0% of responses; the remaining details about the reason for motivation are found in Figure 1. 19.9% of the students expressed uninterest. The most significant reasons were “I believe focusing and practicing my clinical profession is more important than research” and “I didn’t receive a positive attitude towards research during university” with 46.9% and 36.7%, respectively; the remaining details are found in Figure 2. Attitude: Students' attitudes were assessed by using six questions. More than two-thirds of students (70.7%) had a negative attitude, with a low average attitude score equal to (2.64±1.45). The total score was 6 points, while the range score for positive attitude was for those who had a score above 3 points and negative for those who had a score equal to or below 3 points. Male, pre-clinical, and participants in SMSA activities showed higher attitude scores (2.86±1.50 vs. 2.52±1.40, 2.85±1.43 vs. 2.37±1.43, and 3.91±1.17 vs. 2.25±1.29, respectively) with p-values (0.074, 0.010, and <0.001) (data not in tables). When testing the relationship between students' attitude level and gender, academic grades, and attending SMSA activities, we found a statistically significant difference between participators and non-participators in SMSA activities and academic grades (p = <0.001 and 0.039, respectively); only gender didn't show a statistically significant difference with p-value (0.119) (Table 3). Table 3: Medical students' level of attitude to relationships across gender, academic grade, and attending SMSA activities. Variables Attitude level X 2 P Positive (N=72) Negative (N=174) Total (N= 246) Gender Male 32(35.2%) 59(64.8%) 91(100%) 2.43 0.119 Female 40(25.8%) 115(74.2%) 155(100%) Academic grade Pre-clinical 48(34.5%) 91(65.5%) 139(100%) 4.28 0.039 Clinical 24(22.4%) 83(77.6%) 107(100%) Attends SMSA activities participants 38(65.5%) 20(34.4%) 58(100%) 48.2 < 0.001 Non- participants 34(18.0%) 154(81.9%) 188(100%) Barries: The questionnaire included 13 questions that addressed students' barriers to medical research at the university. A lack of well-equipped laboratory facilities was reported as the most frequent barrier, with 39.0% of respondents agreeing and 43.9% strongly agreeing. The second most reported barrier was a lack of supportive staff, such as biostatisticians, bioethicists, and proof editors, with 47.2% agreeing and 34.6% strongly agreeing. In the third seat of the barrier was reported a lack of adequate funding for student research was reported, with 30.5% agreeing and 48.0% strongly agreeing. The remaining barriers were generally more agreed upon (Table 4). Table 4: Barriers to student research at the university (n = 246). Items Strongly disagree Disagree Natural Agree Strongly agree N (%) Lack of adequate funding for student research 2(0.8%) 9(3.7%) 42(17.1%) 75(30.5%) 118 (48.0%) The time allocated to student research is insufficient 1(0.4) 20(8.1%) 70(28.5%) 86(35.0%) 69(28.0%) The medical curriculum is very demanding 1(0.4%) 29(11.8%) 51(20.7%) 88(35.8%) 77(31.3%) Difficulty in following up with patients or research subjects 2(0.8%) 41(16.7%) 72(29.3%) 92(37.4%) 39(15.9%) Lack of supportive staff such as biostatisticians, bioethicists, and proof editors 3(1.2%) 10(4.1%) 32(13.0%) 116(47.2%) 85(34.6%) Lack of interest in research by faculty 2(0.8%) 15(6.1%) 39(15.9%) 87(35.4%) 103(41.9%) Lack of well-equipped laboratory facilities 4(1.6%) 11(4.5%) 27(11.0%) 96(39.0%) 108(43.9%) Lack of adequate research and a biostatistics curriculum 3(1.2%) 19(7.7%) 43(17.5%) 100(40.7%) 81(32.9%) Lack of competent and committed supervisors 3(1.2%) 33(13.4%) 69(28.0%) 81(32.9%) 60(24.4%) Lack of well-equipped computer facilities 3(1.2%) 21(8.5%) 38(15.4%) 98(39.8%) 86(35.0%) Lack of study subjects or samples for research 6(2.4%) 79(32.1%) 57(23.2%) 72(29.3%) 32(13.0%) Difficulty in obtaining administrative approval 6(2.4%) 72(29.3%) 80(32.5%) 59(24.0%) 29(11.8%) Difficulty in obtaining ethical approval 5(2.0%) 90(36.6%) 74(30.1%) 58(23.6%) 19(7.7%) Table 4 embedding place. Students’ trials in using AI tools in writing research: About 21.5% of participants had been part of research projects, but only 16 students had had a previous trial in using AI tools for scientific writing. The majority of them agreed these tools were useful, and qualification was 87.5% present; up to two-thirds believed and the assurance of AI suggestions. The answers about where they were using AI tools to facilitate research writing tasks are described in Figure 3. Table 5: Students’ trials in using AI tools in writing research. Items Yes N(%) No N(%) Do you have previous trials in using AI tools to write research or articles? 16(6.5%) 230(93.5%) Yes N(%) No N(%) Are AI tools useful and qualification in progress and improving suggestions in writing research or articles? 14(87.5%) 2(12.5%) Do you believe in the results and dissertations of AI tools? 10(67.5%) 6(37.5%) Discussion The perception showing in results was relatively similar to a Sudanese study that found medical students had higher favorable perceptions of these: Research important to the practice of medicine (91.3%), should be part of the medical curricula (76%), should have research experience be an important criterion for residency training in medicine after graduation (63.5%), and submission of a thesis be a requirement for partial fulfillment of the MBBS degree (59.6%) ( 4 ), when compared with data in Table 2. The perception can be considered an indicator of knowledge and awareness. However, this gradual shortage in students' responses can be explained by a lack of students' awareness of why research adds to the medical curriculum, its genuine role in medical education, and why research experience is important for residency training after graduation. A collective of studies surveying students from various countries worldwide revealed that career progression and academic advancement were their primary motivational factors for conducting research ( 14 – 18 ), which complies with the fact that most medical students in Sudan want to pursue specialist training in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and the United States. These highly competitive programs need good research training and publications. So, when asking students about their interests, the result recorded (80.1%) of students were interested, with the majority answering to elevate my professional standing as a clinician (66.5%), and it is essential to select in clinical training programs (34.0%). Also, answers of not-interested students said the first reason was, I believe, focusing and practicing my clinical profession is more important than research (46.9%), and I didn't have a positive attitude towards research during university (36.7%). However, the sighted in this data assured that the real students’ goal was gaining research experience to search for better clinical career chances, not to enhance research careers; previous literature supports this finding ( 19 – 21 ). Whatever, creating a friendly research environment is one of the important suggestions for solving these problems, which can be achieved by providing private parts of the curriculum time for launching research camps and workshops, and allowing students to engage in university projects. Also, a study reported that the building of relationships between research centers and universities can help in evaluating their interest and appreciating the role of research in human health ( 4 ). The result of this study revealed that the vast majority of medical students had a negative attitude toward research; this finding is inconsistent with previous research conducted at Tanta University Faculty of Medicine, Egypt, which revealed that medical students had a positive attitude, with an average score of 66.2% ( 22 ). A study conducted at Hadhramout University, Yemen, reported similar results, with an average score of 90.9% for the students’ attitudes toward medical research ( 2 ). Besides that, a study conducted in Pakistan reported that medical students’ attitudes toward medical research were relatively unacceptable, with an average score of 53.7% ( 5 ). A positive disposition toward research serves as a significant determinant of research engagement, encouraging students to actively seek opportunities and demonstrating resilience in overcoming obstacles ( 23 ). So, the negative attitude should be taken into account, and corresponding issues should be solved by key stakeholders, for example, by establishing a dedicated research department in the college, giving it a higher weight in the curriculum, and thus allowing students to learn effective research skills. Remarkably, our analysis revealed a lack of statistical significance only when examining the relationship between gender and students’ attitudes toward research. The gender results show similar findings to a study conducted among medical students at Ain Shams University ( 24 ). Also, in a study conducted in Pakistan ( 5 )The males scored significantly higher in attitude than the females. Meanwhile, a study conducted in Saudi Arabia ( 25 ), reported that female students had more positive attitudes toward research than male students. However, we observed a statistically significant difference between academic grades and participation in SMSA activities. Also, previous studies had reported a positive correlation between attitude and academic progression, which was observed in ( 5 , 26 – 28 ). Participants in SMSA activities had a result of 65.5% for participants versus 18.0% for non-participants, with a p-value (< 0.001). Academic writing is a key aspect of research and education, involving a structured method of expressing ideas ( 29 ). This process of simplifying complex ideas while ensuring accuracy, evidence, and logical structure helps readers thoroughly understand a topic, but requires a significant amount of time when writing scientific articles. This is generally time-consuming and challenging, especially for students. With these challenges, AI has become a valuable resource in academic writing. AI writing assistants can help with grammar, structure, paraphrasing, citations, and discipline conventions. In our survey, we determined that most of the students apply AI tools to confess their qualifications and trust (Table 5 ), with determined components used as displayed in Fig. 3 . Conclusion The study reveals that medical students at FMUS had a positive perception of research and showed high interest in researching to enhance clinical careers, not research careers. Most of the students had a negative attitude towards conducting research and expressed many barriers, such as lack of well-equipped laboratory facilities, lack of supportive staff and monitoring, lack of adequate funding for student research, and lack of faculty interest. These problems can be solved by faculty stakeholders through establishing adequate research training activities and settings for undergraduate medical students. Abbreviations FMUS Faculty of Medicine University of Sinnar SMSA Sinnar Medical Students Association PBC Problem based-curriculum MBBS Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery Declarations Ethical considerations and Consent to participate: Ethical approval was obtained from the research and ethics committee at the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Sinnar, Sinnar, Sudan. For participants' consent, we inserted written consent in the introductory page of the questionnaire. Consent for publication: Not applicable Availability of data and materials: The data set used and/or analyzed during the study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Conflict of interest: The authors declared no competing interests. Funding: Authors did not receive any fund from any agency. Acknowledgements: Not applicable Authors contribution: A.M.A.B: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Methodology, Validation, Writing initial draft, Revision of final draft. S.M.A.B, E.M.A.B: Data Curation, Data analysis, Methodology, Writing initial draft and final draft. References Achi D, El HL, Al, Makki M, Mokaddem M, Khalil PA, Kaafarani BR. Perception, attitude, practice and barriers towards medical research among undergraduate students. 2020;1–11. Bin-ghouth A, Batarfi SA, Abonemi AH, Maknoon AS, Sa A, Khred A et al. Perception, attitude, and practice toward research among medical students in Hadhramout University, Yemen. 2023;1–9. Press D. Perceptions, barriers, and practices of medical research among students at Taibah College of Medicine, Madinah, Saudi Arabia. 2015;479–85. Osman T. Medical students ’ perceptions towards research at a Sudanese University. BMC Med Educ [Internet]. 2016;1–6. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0776-0 Khan H, Khawaja MR, Waheed A, Rauf MA, Fatmi Z. Pakistani Med students. 2006;7:1–7. Alsaleem SA, Alkhairi MAY, Alzahrani MAA, Alwadai MI, Alqahtani SSA, Alaseri YFY et al. Challenges and Barriers Toward Medical Research Among Medical and Dental Students at King Khalid University, Abha, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 2021;9(August):1–7. Siemens DR, Punnen S, Wong J, Kanji N. A survey on the attitudes towards research in medical school. 2010. Mohammadbeigi A, Anbari Z, Jadidi R. Barriers and challenges in researches by Iranian students of medical universities. Perspect Clin Res. 2015;6(2):98. AlGhamdi KM, Moussa NA, AlEssa DS, AlOthimeen N, Al-Saud AS. Perceptions, attitudes and practices toward research among senior medical students. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal [Internet]. 2014;22(2):113–7. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsps.2013.02.006 Zealand N. the Ȱ New Ȱ Zealand Ȱȱ. N Z Med J. 2011;126(137):100–10. Assar A, Matar SG, Hasabo EA, Elsayed SM, Zaazouee MS, Hamdallah A et al. Knowledge, attitudes, practices and perceived barriers towards research in undergraduate medical students of six Arab countries. 2022;1–11. Meraj L, Gul N, Akhter I, Iram F, Khan AS. Perceptions and attitudes towards research amongst medical students at Shifa. 2016;(February):2–7. Ahmed FMT, Mahmmoud M, Eljack F, Awadelkareem H, Fadl O, Hamza A et al. Medical Students ’ Perceptions of the Implemented Curriculum at Sinnar Medical School: A Cross- Sectional Study from Sudan. 2022;(September):1179–85. Griffin MF, Hindocha S, Griffin MF, Hindocha S. Publication practices of medical students at British medical schools: Experience, attitudes and barriers to publish Publication practices of medical students at British medical schools : Experience, attitudes and barriers to publish. 2011. Siemens DR, Punnen S, Wong J, Kanji N. A survey on the attitudes towards research in medical school. 2010. Cruser A, Dubin B, Brown SK, Bakken LL, Licciardone JC, Podawiltz AL et al. Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Biomedical research competencies for osteopathic medical students. 2009;11:1–11. Alghamdi KM, Moussa NA, Alessa DS. Perceptions, attitudes and practices toward research among senior medical students. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal [Internet]. 2015;22(2):113–7. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsps.2013.02.006 Stockfelt M, Karlsson L, Finizia C. Research interest and activity among medical students in Gothenburg, Sweden, a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Educ [Internet]. 2016;1–8. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0749-3 Khan H, Khan S, Iqbal A. Knowledge, attitudes and practices around health research: The perspective of physicians-in-training in Pakistan. BMC Med Educ. 2009;9(1):1–8. Amin TT, Kaliyadan F, Al Qattan EA, Al Majed MH, Al Khanjaf HS, Mirza M. Knowledge, attitudes and barriers related to participation of medical students in research in three Arab Universities. Educ Med J. 2012;4(1). Vodopivec I, Vujaklija A, Hrabak M, Lukić IK, Marušić A, Marušić M. Knowledge about and attitude towards science of first year medical students. Croat Med J. 2002;43(1):58–62. Orebi HA, Shahin MR, Tawfik M, Allah A, Hegazy AH. Medical students ’ perceptions, experiences, and barriers towards research implementation at the faculty of medicine. Tanta Univ. 2023;1–9. Khan KA, Aigerim D, Xueqing Z, Adil A, Ghayas S, Yasmeen S, et al. Construction and Piloting of Attitude Towards Research Participation Scale for University Students. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2021;14:2071–9. Abushouk AI, Hatata AN, Omran IM, Youniss MM, Elmansy KF, Meawad AG. Attitudes and Perceived Barriers among Medical Students towards Clinical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study in an Egyptian Medical School. 2016;2016. Vinet L, Zhedanov A. A missing family of classical orthogonal polynomials. J Phys, Math Theor A. [Internet]. 2011;44(8):1–14. Available from: http://scioteca.caf.com/bitstream/handle/123456789/1091/RED2017-Eng-8ene.pdf?sequence=12&isAllowed=y%0Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2008.06.005%0Ahttps://www. researchgate.net/publication/305320484_SISTEM_PEMBETUNGAN_TERPUSAT _STRATEGI_MELESTARI Vujaklija A, Hren D, Sambunjak D, Vodopivec I, Ivanix A, Maruxi A, et al. Can Teaching Research Methodology Influence Students’ Attitude Toward Science? Cohort Study and Nonrandomized Trial in a Single Medical School Background: Medical teaching aims to develop attitudes and behaviors. J Investig Med. 2010;58(2):282–7. Noorelahi MM, Soubhanneyaz AA, Kasim KA. Perceptions, barriers, and practices of medical research among students at Taibah college of medicine, Madinah, Saudi Arabia. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2015;6:479–85. Pallamparthy S, Basavareddy A. Knowledge, attitude, practice, and barriers toward research among medical students : A cross sectional questionnaire based survey. 2019;73–8. Albadawy M, Khalifa M, Albadawy M. Using Artificial Intelligence in Academic Writing and Research: An Essential Productivity Tool Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine Update Using artificial intelligence in academic writing and research : An essential productivity tool. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine Update [Internet]. 2024;5(March):100145. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpbup.2024.100145 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6499038","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":445974114,"identity":"ebac1040-2a12-4406-bfa7-8c20aef57207","order_by":0,"name":"Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Balla","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Medical Sciences and Technology","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ahmed","middleName":"Mohammed Ahmed","lastName":"Balla","suffix":""},{"id":445974115,"identity":"fd2cac46-7711-4c0f-8d1b-94b8d1c8ceb0","order_by":1,"name":"Samer Mohammed Ahmed Balla","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Medical Sciences and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Samer","middleName":"Mohammed Ahmed","lastName":"Balla","suffix":""},{"id":445974116,"identity":"fca81729-9e92-468d-abb1-e2a20f837274","order_by":2,"name":"Esraa Mohammed Ahmed Balla","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Gezira","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Esraa","middleName":"Mohammed Ahmed","lastName":"Balla","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-04-22 00:23:04","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6499038/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6499038/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":81933803,"identity":"78a97087-8b59-4aac-852d-8cad838f74c2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-05 05:41:22","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":33889,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eStudents’ reasons for conducting research (N=197).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6499038/v1/1ce161e19d6bee0d36910d70.png"},{"id":81933805,"identity":"35f816d2-c6e1-44b4-a17d-05dc6ec9ad1c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-05 05:41:22","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":37484,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eStudents’ reasons for ignoring conducting research (N=49).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6499038/v1/c89e9d8631814e6a7ac0d9d2.png"},{"id":81934921,"identity":"46bdf20e-33d1-489d-88cf-26025512eadd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-05 05:59:52","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":28110,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eStudents answer about aspect of using AI tools in academic writing (N=16).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6499038/v1/b9f842e30de1c42addf2e551.png"},{"id":81936487,"identity":"9f34b42b-b69a-44f6-a029-5e786dee49c0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-05 06:08:32","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1024643,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6499038/v1/06bf074e-4727-4c3b-8f36-e23cdd6224e1.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Perceptions, Attitudes, and Barriers of Undergraduate Medical Students Towards Research at Sinnar University, Sudan","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eHealth research and new innovations have been currently guiding improved healthcare services and clinical practice, and play an important role in promoting critical thinking and reasoning skills. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). However, health research training was documented as an essential part of medical education to educate undergraduate medical students (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Which allows them to meet accreditation standards and increase their chance of acceptance in highly competitive programs (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). By incorporating health research in their educational systems, medical schools promote a pool of researchers, which could fill the void of physician-scientists (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). Encouraging a research curriculum during the undergraduate phase is one of the important factors to develop a positive attitude, which enables them to be research-oriented in their future career. Also, research knowledge can help students not participate in practice research by improving their ability to make evidence-based decisions in their clinical life (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite that, most students are not aware of why research is crucial to health care (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Negative attitudes toward research serve as an obstacle to learning, associated with poor performance in research (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e). A study shows medical schools\u0026rsquo; attempts to encourage students to take research training during the undergraduate medical education phase remain unsatisfactory (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e). From a student\u0026rsquo;s view of a study report, the majority of medical students are interested in conducting research, but unfortunately, there are some barriers and hindrances that make them unable (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, it was important to find out their challenges and barriers that faced them in conducting research and try to develop recommendations that may contribute to solving the problems. According to the literature, several studies suggest that lack of supervisor support and research staff, not enough time, inadequate approaches, difficulty publishing research during medical school, limited access to data sources, and scarce infrastructure for research training are the main barriers for medical students (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR10\" citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, promoting a supportive undergraduate research environment is, therefore, recommended, with the need for medical institutions to focus on the integration of specific research skills and training within all aspects of the undergraduate medical curriculum; it has been emphasized (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e). An initial step in enhancing the undergraduates' role in the medical research field is exploring their underlying potential (knowledge and attitudes) and the anticipated barriers that they might face in practicing research. Unfortunately, a study assessing the curriculum at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Sinnar (FMUS) reports that the first reason for undergraduate students not enhancing their research skills is the unavailability of the research department in the university, with 72.8% of students\u0026rsquo; voices (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e). As a result of this assessment study, Sinnar Medical Student Associate (SMSA) initiated an office for research in an attempt to address the shortfalls, training their students in the research methodology, leading students\u0026rsquo; research projects, and allowing them to supervise themselves. The present work aimed to assess the perception, attitude, and barriers towards medical research among FMUS undergraduate medical students and to identify factors of motivation and hindrance that may be affecting them. The results will help in establishing an appropriate research environment at the undergraduate level in the medical school.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStudy design and settings:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA cross-sectional study among undergraduate medical students at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Sinnar (FMUS). The study was conducted from December 20th, 2023, to February 25th, 2024. Sinnar University enrolls students from Sudanese or non-Sudanese nationalities, which has more than 900 medical students at the Faculty of Medicine from years 1 to 5, with a study population close to 600 students from the second year and above. Medical school at Sinnar University offers a 5-year program with a problem-based curriculum (PBC), a community-oriented curriculum leading to an MBBS degree. Basic health sciences are the primary focus in the first three years, with gradually increasing exposure to clinical practice over the next two years.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eStudy participants:\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study population was undergraduate medical students at FMUS. The inclusion criteria for this study were all undergraduate medical students at the Faculty of Medicine from the 2nd year to the 5th year, either participants or non-participants in SMSA activities. We only excluded 1st year medical students, as they are not yet familiar with research, or students are below 18 years of age. The sample size was calculated using the Krejcie \u0026amp; Morgan formula of known population size:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003en\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;X\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e N P(1-P) / e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e (N-1)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;X\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e P(1-P).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003en: Sample size.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e: Chi-square value (at 95% confidence level with a degree of freedom of 1, it's equal to 3.841).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eN: Population size, which equals 600 students.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ee\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e: Margin of error square (is equal to (0.05)\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e at 95% confidence level).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eP: Population proportion\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThus, the optimal sample size is equal to 234 students.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe selection was done by distributing an online questionnaire via Google Forms survey on private university platforms, explaining to participants the research concept, their freedom to be part of the study, and that the collected data would be used for studying only. The questionnaire was closed in sample size\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;10% (258).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eStudy tool :\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors designed a self-administration questionnaire to collect data based on a comprehensive search in literature reviews. The questionnaire comprised 6 main sections with a total of 45 questions, addressing the following:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSection I: This section included students' demographics: age, gender, academic year, and whether the student was attending (SMSA) activities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSection II: This section has 4 items aimed at assessing students' perceptions about research using 5-point Likert scale questions that range from 1 to 5 (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly disagree, 2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;disagree, 3\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;neutral, 4\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;agree, 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly agree). We categorized students' responses to questions into positive as strongly agree and agree on answers with (5, 4 score points, respectively), where negative are these who answer by strongly disagreeing and disagreeing with (1, 2 score points, respectively), and 3 points for neutral answers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSection III: Its goal is to assess students' motivation and hindering factors for research using multiple-choice questions with two pathways: 6 or 8 items. The 6 items are for students who are interested in conducting research and 8 items for those who are uninterested in research, while choice answers mean \"Yes\" and unchoice mean \"No\".\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSection IV: The section was sighted by students' practice attitude in conducting research through 6 items. The participants responded to them using a single-choice answer of either (Yes or No). We scored the 'Yes' answer by 1 point and the 'No' answer by 0 points. Then we determine a positive attitude for those who have above 3 points and a negative one for those who are equal to or below 3 points.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSection V: Exploring students\u0026rsquo; barriers at university towards research, the questions concerned limitation factors such as labs, databases, facilities of research, and unavailability of staff, etc. Using 13 questions, participants were able to answer these questions by using a 5-point Likert scale.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSection VI: The last part was directed at measuring students' awareness of using AI tools in writing research and their impression of its benefit. We are using 3 single-choice questions and one multiple-choice answer (the choice answers mean 'Yes' and non-choice answers mean 'No').\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStatistical analysis:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe collected data were organized, tabulated, and statistically analyzed using Jamovi version 2.4.11 (3rd generation software based on the 'R' statistical language). The range, mean, and standard deviation were calculated for numerical values. Data visualization and figures were done with the RStudio version 2023.12.1. The number and percentage were calculated for categorical variables, and the independent t-test was used to compare continuous variables with two categories. The Chi-square test was used to determine the relationship between categorical variables; the level of significance was set at p-value\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.05.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDemographic characteristics:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe questionnaire was answered by 258 students; 12 responses were invalid, and 246 responses were included in the study. The mean age of all students was 22.0 \u0026plusmn; 1.38 and ranged from 19 - 25 years old. The majority were female (n = 155, 63.0%). A total of 56.5% of the students were at the preclinical stage, representing the 2nd and 3rd years, while 43.5% of them were in clinical years, which were divided into the 4th and 5th years. Close to one-quarter of the students (23.6%) were enrolled in the SMSA activities, while 76.4% of students didn\u0026apos;t participate in it (Table 1).\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Table 1:\u003c/strong\u003e The demographic characteristics of the participant.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32.3944%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCharacteristics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30.9859%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36.6197%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eN (%) Total n = 246\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32.3944%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAge\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30.9859%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36.6197%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.0 \u0026plusmn; 1.38 ( 19-25 )\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32.3944%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGender\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30.9859%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36.6197%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e91 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; (37.0\u0026thinsp;%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32.3944%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30.9859%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36.6197%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e155 (63.0\u0026thinsp;%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32.3944%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStudy year\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30.9859%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36.6197%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32.3944%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Pre-clinical\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30.9859%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003csup\u003end\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003eyear\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36.6197%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e72 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; (29.3\u0026thinsp;%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32.3944%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30.9859%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003csup\u003eth\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003eyear\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36.6197%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e67 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; (27.2\u0026thinsp;%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32.3944%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Clinical\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30.9859%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003csup\u003eth\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003eyear\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36.6197%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; (15.4\u0026thinsp;%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32.3944%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30.9859%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36.6197%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e69 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; (28.0\u0026thinsp;%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32.3944%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAttend SMSA activities\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30.9859%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParticipants\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36.6197%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e58 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; (23.6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32.3944%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30.9859%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNon-\u0026nbsp;participants\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36.6197%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e188 (76.4%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStudents\u0026apos; Perceptions of Research:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe questionnaire included 4 items that addressed the perception of students toward medical research. It was found that the majority of students had a positive perception of the following three items: Is research important to the practice of medicine, should research training be part of the medical curricula, and should submission of a thesis be a requirement for partial fulfillment of the MBBS degrees (95.9%, 86.2%, and 59.8%, respectively), However, most of the students had a negative perception of the last item, with only 37.8% for positive answers; the item was, should having research experience be an important criterion for residency training in medicine after graduation (Table 2). Male, clinical grade, and participants in SMSA activities reported a more positive perception towards medical research as indicated by their scores; the significant difference was reported only between academic grades (p-value 0.039).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2:\u003c/strong\u003e Positive perception responses among students, as well as overall perception score and those stratified by different students\u0026rsquo; demographical characteristics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46.8085%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePerception\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.2766%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.1489%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePositive responses\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.766%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46.8085%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIs research important to the practice of medicine?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.2766%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.1489%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e236 (95.9%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.766%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46.8085%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eShould research training be part of the medical curricula?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.2766%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.1489%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e212 (86.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.766%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46.8085%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eShould submission of a thesis be a requirement for partial fulfillment of the MBBS degrees?\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.2766%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.1489%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e147 (59.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.766%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46.8085%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eShould having research experience be an important criterion for residency training in medicine after graduation?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.2766%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.1489%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e93 (37.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.766%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46.8085%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOverall score, mean \u0026plusmn; SD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.2766%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.1489%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.89\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.634\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.766%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46.8085%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStratified by students\u0026rsquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003edemographical\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;characteristics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.2766%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.1489%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMean \u0026plusmn; SD\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.766%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eP-value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46.8085%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.2766%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.1489%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.99\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn; \u0026nbsp;0.624\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.766%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.338\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46.8085%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.2766%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.1489%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.86\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.635\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.766%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46.8085%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcademic grade\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.2766%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePre-clinical\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.1489%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.81\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.621\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.766%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.039\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46.8085%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.2766%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eclinical\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.1489%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.98\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.640\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.766%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46.8085%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAttend in SMSA activities\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.2766%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eparticipants\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.1489%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.94\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.711\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.766%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.166\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46.8085%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.2766%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNon-\u0026nbsp;participants\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.1489%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.86\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.535\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.766%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2 embedding place.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStudents\u0026rsquo; interest in conducting research:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analysis shows the majority of FMUS students expressed their interest in conducting research with 197 (80.1%) present voices. The primary reason was elevating their professional standing as a clinician, with 66.5%, and secondly, there is essential to select in clinical training programs with 34.0% of responses; the remaining details about the reason for motivation are found in Figure 1. 19.9% of the students expressed uninterest. The most significant reasons were \u0026ldquo;I believe focusing and practicing my clinical profession is more important than research\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;I didn\u0026rsquo;t receive a positive attitude towards research during university\u0026rdquo; with 46.9% and 36.7%, respectively; the remaining details are found in Figure 2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAttitude:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudents\u0026apos; attitudes were assessed by using six questions. More than two-thirds of students (70.7%) had a negative attitude, with a low average attitude score equal to (2.64\u0026plusmn;1.45). The total score was 6 points, while the range score for positive attitude was for those who had a score above 3 points and negative for those who had a score equal to or below 3 points. Male, pre-clinical, and participants in SMSA activities showed higher attitude scores (2.86\u0026plusmn;1.50 vs. 2.52\u0026plusmn;1.40, 2.85\u0026plusmn;1.43 vs. 2.37\u0026plusmn;1.43, and 3.91\u0026plusmn;1.17 vs. 2.25\u0026plusmn;1.29, respectively) with p-values (0.074, 0.010, and \u0026lt;0.001) (data not in tables). When testing the relationship between students\u0026apos; attitude level and gender, academic grades, and attending SMSA activities, we found a statistically significant difference between participators and non-participators in SMSA activities and academic grades (p = \u0026lt;0.001 and 0.039, respectively); only gender didn\u0026apos;t show a statistically significant difference with p-value (0.119) (Table 3).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3:\u003c/strong\u003e Medical students\u0026apos; level of attitude to relationships across gender, academic grade, and attending SMSA activities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"690\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.5217%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariables\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.6522%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAttitude level\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.913%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.5072%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.23188%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eX\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1739%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eP\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.5217%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.6522%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePositive (N=72)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.913%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNegative (N=174)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.5072%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal (N= 246)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.23188%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1739%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.5217%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.6522%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32(35.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.913%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59(64.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.5072%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e91(100%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.23188%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1739%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.119\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.5217%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.6522%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40(25.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.913%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e115(74.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.5072%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e155(100%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.23188%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1739%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.5217%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcademic grade\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePre-clinical\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.6522%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48(34.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.913%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e91(65.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.5072%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e139(100%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.23188%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1739%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.039\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.5217%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eClinical\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.6522%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24(22.4%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.913%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e83(77.6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.5072%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e107(100%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.23188%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1739%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.5217%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAttends SMSA activities\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eparticipants\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.6522%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38(65.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.913%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20(34.4%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.5072%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e58(100%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.23188%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1739%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.5217%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNon- participants\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.6522%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34(18.0%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.913%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e154(81.9%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.5072%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e188(100%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.23188%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.1739%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBarries:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe questionnaire included 13 questions that addressed students\u0026apos; barriers to medical research at the university. A lack of well-equipped laboratory facilities was reported as the most frequent barrier, with 39.0% of respondents agreeing and 43.9% strongly agreeing. The second most reported barrier was a lack of supportive staff, such as biostatisticians, bioethicists, and proof editors, with 47.2% agreeing and 34.6% strongly agreeing. In the third seat of the barrier was reported a lack of adequate funding for student research was reported, with 30.5% agreeing and 48.0% strongly agreeing. The remaining barriers were generally more agreed upon (Table 4).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eBarriers to student research at the university (n = 246).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"725\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eItems\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17.5172%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStrongly disagree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.5862%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDisagree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.5862%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNatural\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4138%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAgree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.8966%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStrongly agree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17.5172%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.5862%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.5862%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4138%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.8966%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLack of adequate funding for student research\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17.5172%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2(0.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.5862%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9(3.7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.5862%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42(17.1%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4138%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e75(30.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.8966%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e118 (48.0%)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe time allocated to student research is insufficient\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17.5172%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1(0.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.5862%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20(8.1%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.5862%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70(28.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4138%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e86(35.0%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.8966%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e69(28.0%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe medical curriculum is very demanding\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17.5172%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1(0.4%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.5862%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29(11.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.5862%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51(20.7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4138%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e88(35.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.8966%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e77(31.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDifficulty in following up with patients or research subjects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17.5172%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2(0.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.5862%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41(16.7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.5862%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e72(29.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4138%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e92(37.4%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.8966%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39(15.9%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLack of supportive staff such as biostatisticians, bioethicists, and proof editors\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17.5172%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3(1.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.5862%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10(4.1%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.5862%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32(13.0%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4138%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e116(47.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.8966%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e85(34.6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLack of interest in research by faculty\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17.5172%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2(0.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.5862%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15(6.1%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.5862%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39(15.9%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4138%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e87(35.4%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.8966%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e103(41.9%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLack of well-equipped laboratory facilities\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17.5172%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4(1.6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.5862%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11(4.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.5862%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27(11.0%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4138%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e96(39.0%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.8966%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e108(43.9%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLack of adequate research and a biostatistics curriculum\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17.5172%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3(1.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.5862%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19(7.7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.5862%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43(17.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4138%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100(40.7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.8966%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e81(32.9%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLack of competent and committed supervisors\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17.5172%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3(1.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.5862%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33(13.4%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.5862%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e69(28.0%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4138%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e81(32.9%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.8966%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60(24.4%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLack of well-equipped computer facilities\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17.5172%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3(1.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.5862%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21(8.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.5862%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38(15.4%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4138%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e98(39.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.8966%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e86(35.0%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLack of study subjects or samples for research\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17.5172%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6(2.4%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.5862%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e79(32.1%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.5862%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57(23.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4138%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e72(29.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.8966%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32(13.0%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDifficulty in obtaining administrative approval\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17.5172%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6(2.4%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.5862%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e72(29.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.5862%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e80(32.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4138%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59(24.0%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.8966%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29(11.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDifficulty in obtaining ethical approval\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17.5172%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5(2.0%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.5862%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e90(36.6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.5862%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e74(30.1%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4138%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e58(23.6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.8966%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19(7.7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4 embedding place.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStudents\u0026rsquo; trials in using AI tools in writing research:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAbout 21.5% of participants had been part of research projects, but only 16 students had had a previous trial in using AI tools for scientific writing. The majority of them agreed these tools were useful, and qualification was 87.5% present; up to two-thirds believed and the assurance of AI suggestions. The answers about where they were using AI tools to facilitate research writing tasks are described in Figure 3.\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 5:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eStudents\u0026rsquo; trials\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eusing AI tools in writing research.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"624\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59.6154%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eItems\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.6795%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eYes N(%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 2.5641%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.141%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNo N(%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59.6154%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDo\u0026nbsp;you have previous trials in using AI tools to write research or articles?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.6795%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16(6.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 2.5641%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.141%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e230(93.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59.6154%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.1026%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eYes N(%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.141%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNo N(%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.141%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59.6154%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAre AI tools useful and qualification in progress and improving suggestions in writing research or articles?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.1026%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14(87.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.141%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2(12.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.141%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59.6154%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDo you believe in the results and dissertations of AI tools?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.1026%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10(67.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.141%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6(37.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.141%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe perception showing in results was relatively similar to a Sudanese study that found medical students had higher favorable perceptions of these: Research important to the practice of medicine (91.3%), should be part of the medical curricula (76%), should have research experience be an important criterion for residency training in medicine after graduation (63.5%), and submission of a thesis be a requirement for partial fulfillment of the MBBS degree (59.6%) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e), when compared with data in Table\u0026nbsp;2. The perception can be considered an indicator of knowledge and awareness. However, this gradual shortage in students' responses can be explained by a lack of students' awareness of why research adds to the medical curriculum, its genuine role in medical education, and why research experience is important for residency training after graduation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA collective of studies surveying students from various countries worldwide revealed that career progression and academic advancement were their primary motivational factors for conducting research (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR15 CR16 CR17\" citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e), which complies with the fact that most medical students in Sudan want to pursue specialist training in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and the United States. These highly competitive programs need good research training and publications. So, when asking students about their interests, the result recorded (80.1%) of students were interested, with the majority answering to elevate my professional standing as a clinician (66.5%), and it is essential to select in clinical training programs (34.0%). Also, answers of not-interested students said the first reason was, I believe, focusing and practicing my clinical profession is more important than research (46.9%), and I didn't have a positive attitude towards research during university (36.7%). However, the sighted in this data assured that the real students\u0026rsquo; goal was gaining research experience to search for better clinical career chances, not to enhance research careers; previous literature supports this finding (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR20\" citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e). Whatever, creating a friendly research environment is one of the important suggestions for solving these problems, which can be achieved by providing private parts of the curriculum time for launching research camps and workshops, and allowing students to engage in university projects. Also, a study reported that the building of relationships between research centers and universities can help in evaluating their interest and appreciating the role of research in human health (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe result of this study revealed that the vast majority of medical students had a negative attitude toward research; this finding is inconsistent with previous research conducted at Tanta University Faculty of Medicine, Egypt, which revealed that medical students had a positive attitude, with an average score of 66.2% (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e). A study conducted at Hadhramout University, Yemen, reported similar results, with an average score of 90.9% for the students\u0026rsquo; attitudes toward medical research (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Besides that, a study conducted in Pakistan reported that medical students\u0026rsquo; attitudes toward medical research were relatively unacceptable, with an average score of 53.7% (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). A positive disposition toward research serves as a significant determinant of research engagement, encouraging students to actively seek opportunities and demonstrating resilience in overcoming obstacles (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e). So, the negative attitude should be taken into account, and corresponding issues should be solved by key stakeholders, for example, by establishing a dedicated research department in the college, giving it a higher weight in the curriculum, and thus allowing students to learn effective research skills.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRemarkably, our analysis revealed a lack of statistical significance only when examining the relationship between gender and students\u0026rsquo; attitudes toward research. The gender results show similar findings to a study conducted among medical students at Ain Shams University (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e). Also, in a study conducted in Pakistan (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e)The males scored significantly higher in attitude than the females. Meanwhile, a study conducted in Saudi Arabia (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e), reported that female students had more positive attitudes toward research than male students. However, we observed a statistically significant difference between academic grades and participation in SMSA activities. Also, previous studies had reported a positive correlation between attitude and academic progression, which was observed in (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR27\" citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e). Participants in SMSA activities had a result of 65.5% for participants versus 18.0% for non-participants, with a p-value (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcademic writing is a key aspect of research and education, involving a structured method of expressing ideas (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e). This process of simplifying complex ideas while ensuring accuracy, evidence, and logical structure helps readers thoroughly understand a topic, but requires a significant amount of time when writing scientific articles. This is generally time-consuming and challenging, especially for students. With these challenges, AI has become a valuable resource in academic writing. AI writing assistants can help with grammar, structure, paraphrasing, citations, and discipline conventions. In our survey, we determined that most of the students apply AI tools to confess their qualifications and trust (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e), with determined components used as displayed in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study reveals that medical students at FMUS had a positive perception of research and showed high interest in researching to enhance clinical careers, not research careers. Most of the students had a negative attitude towards conducting research and expressed many barriers, such as lack of well-equipped laboratory facilities, lack of supportive staff and monitoring, lack of adequate funding for student research, and lack of faculty interest. These problems can be solved by faculty stakeholders through establishing adequate research training activities and settings for undergraduate medical students.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003eFMUS\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Faculty of Medicine University of Sinnar\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSMSA\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Sinnar Medical Students Association\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePBC\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Problem based-curriculum\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMBBS \u0026nbsp;Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical considerations and Consent to participate:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical approval was obtained from the research and ethics committee at the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Sinnar, Sinnar, Sudan. For participants\u0026apos; consent, we inserted written consent in the introductory page of the questionnaire.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Availability of data and materials:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data set used and/or analyzed during the study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflict of interest: \u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declared no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAuthors did not receive any fund from any agency.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors contribution:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA.M.A.B: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Methodology, Validation, Writing initial draft, Revision of final draft.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eS.M.A.B, E.M.A.B: Data Curation, Data analysis, Methodology, Writing initial draft and final draft.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAchi D, El HL, Al, Makki M, Mokaddem M, Khalil PA, Kaafarani BR. Perception, attitude, practice and barriers towards medical research among undergraduate students. 2020;1\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBin-ghouth A, Batarfi SA, Abonemi AH, Maknoon AS, Sa A, Khred A et al. Perception, attitude, and practice toward research among medical students in Hadhramout University, Yemen. 2023;1\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePress D. Perceptions, barriers, and practices of medical research among students at Taibah College of Medicine, Madinah, Saudi Arabia. 2015;479\u0026ndash;85.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOsman T. Medical students \u0026rsquo; perceptions towards research at a Sudanese University. BMC Med Educ [Internet]. 2016;1\u0026ndash;6. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0776-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12909-016-0776-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhan H, Khawaja MR, Waheed A, Rauf MA, Fatmi Z. Pakistani Med students. 2006;7:1\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlsaleem SA, Alkhairi MAY, Alzahrani MAA, Alwadai MI, Alqahtani SSA, Alaseri YFY et al. Challenges and Barriers Toward Medical Research Among Medical and Dental Students at King Khalid University, Abha, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 2021;9(August):1\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSiemens DR, Punnen S, Wong J, Kanji N. A survey on the attitudes towards research in medical school. 2010.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMohammadbeigi A, Anbari Z, Jadidi R. Barriers and challenges in researches by Iranian students of medical universities. Perspect Clin Res. 2015;6(2):98.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlGhamdi KM, Moussa NA, AlEssa DS, AlOthimeen N, Al-Saud AS. Perceptions, attitudes and practices toward research among senior medical students. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal [Internet]. 2014;22(2):113\u0026ndash;7. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsps.2013.02.006\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jsps.2013.02.006\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZealand N. the Ȱ New Ȱ Zealand Ȱȱ. N Z Med J. 2011;126(137):100\u0026ndash;10.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAssar A, Matar SG, Hasabo EA, Elsayed SM, Zaazouee MS, Hamdallah A et al. Knowledge, attitudes, practices and perceived barriers towards research in undergraduate medical students of six Arab countries. 2022;1\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMeraj L, Gul N, Akhter I, Iram F, Khan AS. Perceptions and attitudes towards research amongst medical students at Shifa. 2016;(February):2\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAhmed FMT, Mahmmoud M, Eljack F, Awadelkareem H, Fadl O, Hamza A et al. Medical Students \u0026rsquo; Perceptions of the Implemented Curriculum at Sinnar Medical School: A Cross- Sectional Study from Sudan. 2022;(September):1179\u0026ndash;85.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGriffin MF, Hindocha S, Griffin MF, Hindocha S. Publication practices of medical students at British medical schools: Experience, attitudes and barriers to publish Publication practices of medical students at British medical schools : Experience, attitudes and barriers to publish. 2011.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSiemens DR, Punnen S, Wong J, Kanji N. A survey on the attitudes towards research in medical school. 2010.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCruser A, Dubin B, Brown SK, Bakken LL, Licciardone JC, Podawiltz AL et al. Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Biomedical research competencies for osteopathic medical students. 2009;11:1\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlghamdi KM, Moussa NA, Alessa DS. Perceptions, attitudes and practices toward research among senior medical students. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal [Internet]. 2015;22(2):113\u0026ndash;7. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsps.2013.02.006\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jsps.2013.02.006\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStockfelt M, Karlsson L, Finizia C. Research interest and activity among medical students in Gothenburg, Sweden, a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Educ [Internet]. 2016;1\u0026ndash;8. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0749-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12909-016-0749-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhan H, Khan S, Iqbal A. Knowledge, attitudes and practices around health research: The perspective of physicians-in-training in Pakistan. BMC Med Educ. 2009;9(1):1\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAmin TT, Kaliyadan F, Al Qattan EA, Al Majed MH, Al Khanjaf HS, Mirza M. Knowledge, attitudes and barriers related to participation of medical students in research in three Arab Universities. Educ Med J. 2012;4(1).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVodopivec I, Vujaklija A, Hrabak M, Lukić IK, Marušić A, Marušić M. Knowledge about and attitude towards science of first year medical students. Croat Med J. 2002;43(1):58\u0026ndash;62.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOrebi HA, Shahin MR, Tawfik M, Allah A, Hegazy AH. Medical students \u0026rsquo; perceptions, experiences, and barriers towards research implementation at the faculty of medicine. Tanta Univ. 2023;1\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhan KA, Aigerim D, Xueqing Z, Adil A, Ghayas S, Yasmeen S, et al. Construction and Piloting of Attitude Towards Research Participation Scale for University Students. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2021;14:2071\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAbushouk AI, Hatata AN, Omran IM, Youniss MM, Elmansy KF, Meawad AG. Attitudes and Perceived Barriers among Medical Students towards Clinical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study in an Egyptian Medical School. 2016;2016.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVinet L, Zhedanov A. A missing family of classical orthogonal polynomials. J Phys, Math Theor A. [Internet]. 2011;44(8):1\u0026ndash;14. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://scioteca.caf.com/bitstream/handle/123456789/1091/RED2017-Eng-8ene.pdf?sequence=12\u0026amp;isAllowed=y%0Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2008.06.005%0Ahttps://www. researchgate.net/publication/305320484_SISTEM_PEMBETUNGAN_TERPUSAT _STRATEGI_MELESTARI\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://scioteca.caf.com/bitstream/handle/123456789/1091/RED2017-Eng-8ene.pdf?sequence=12\u0026amp;isAllowed=y%0Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2008.06.005%0Ahttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/305320484_SISTEM_PEMBETUNGAN_TERPUSAT_STRATEGI_MELESTARI\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVujaklija A, Hren D, Sambunjak D, Vodopivec I, Ivanix A, Maruxi A, et al. Can Teaching Research Methodology Influence Students\u0026rsquo; Attitude Toward Science? Cohort Study and Nonrandomized Trial in a Single Medical School Background: Medical teaching aims to develop attitudes and behaviors. J Investig Med. 2010;58(2):282\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNoorelahi MM, Soubhanneyaz AA, Kasim KA. Perceptions, barriers, and practices of medical research among students at Taibah college of medicine, Madinah, Saudi Arabia. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2015;6:479\u0026ndash;85.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePallamparthy S, Basavareddy A. Knowledge, attitude, practice, and barriers toward research among medical students : A cross sectional questionnaire based survey. 2019;73\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlbadawy M, Khalifa M, Albadawy M. Using Artificial Intelligence in Academic Writing and Research: An Essential Productivity Tool Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine Update Using artificial intelligence in academic writing and research : An essential productivity tool. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine Update [Internet]. 2024;5(March):100145. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpbup.2024.100145\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.cmpbup.2024.100145\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Sudan, Medical students, Attitudes, Undergraduate research, medical education","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6499038/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6499038/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBackgrounds\u003c/strong\u003e: Health research training is an essential element in advanced undergraduate medical education. The study aims to understand perceptions, attitudes, and perceived barriers toward research among medical students as a backbone for integrating adequate research training settings and departments at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Sinnar (FMUS).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods: \u003c/strong\u003eA cross-sectional study was conducted between December 2023 and February 2024 among undergraduate medical students at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Sinnar. The questionnaire consisted of demographic data, students’ perceptions, attitudes, and barriers. A dataset of 258 medical students was organized, structured, validated, and analyzed using Jamovi 2.4.11 software. The level of statistical significance was defined as \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e≤ 0.05. While the data visualization and figures were done with the RStudio version 2023.12.1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults: \u003c/strong\u003eA\u003cstrong\u003e \u003c/strong\u003etotal of 246 questionnaires were included in the study. In general, the most medical students had a positive perception towards research, with a significant difference between academic grades. 80.1% of students show their interest in conducting research. However, more than two-thirds of students (70.7%) had a negative attitude towards research. The most common barriers were a lack of well-equipped laboratory facilities, a lack of supportive staff, and a lack of adequate funding for student research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusion: \u003c/strong\u003eThe majority of the students demonstrated positive perceptions and a high interest in conducting research. However, most medical students exhibited a negative attitude toward research, with significant differences for SMSA activities participants.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Perceptions, Attitudes, and Barriers of Undergraduate Medical Students Towards Research at Sinnar University, Sudan","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-05-05 05:41:17","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6499038/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"afc521ae-dc50-46bf-a51d-c937de67bc09","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 5th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-05-05T05:41:19+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-05-05 05:41:17","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6499038","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6499038","identity":"rs-6499038","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}