Assessment of Professionalism among Postgraduate Medical Students: A Cross-Sectional Study from Patna, Bihar

TL;DR

This study assesses professionalism attitudes among postgraduate medical students in Patna, finding higher scores among clinical students compared to pre/paraclinical ones.

Contribution

The study quantitatively evaluates professionalism attitudes in Indian postgraduate medical students for the first time.

Findings

Clinical PG students scored significantly higher in professionalism than pre/paraclinical students.

The overall mean professionalism score was 2.78, indicating room for improvement in training.

A tailored approach to professionalism training is suggested based on departmental differences.

Abstract

Background: Professionalism is a core quality which has to be developed and imbibed by medical students. However, training in professionalism was not a part of the medical curriculum until recently when the Competency-Based Medical Education system was introduced for undergraduate medical students in India, by the National Medical Commission. However, there has been no formal training on professionalism, in the curriculum of postgraduate (PG) medical students in India. Therefore, in this study, we have done a quantitative assessment of the attitude towards professionalism among PG medical students.

Methodology: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 200 PG medical students of an autonomous institute in Patna, Bihar over a period of six months using the Learners’ Attitudes on Medical Professionalism Scale (LAMPS) questionnaire. Data entry was done on Microsft Excel 2015 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington, United States) and data analysis was done using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0 (Released 2019; IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, United States).

Results: Out of 200 study subjects, 55% (n=110) were PG students from clinical departments and 45% (n=90) were from pre-clinical and para-clinical departments; 25.5% (n=51) of them were from first year, 57% (n=114) of them were from second year, and 17.5% (n=35) were from third year PG training. The overall mean score for the LAMPS scale across all domains was found to be 2.78±0.178 (mean±S.D). Clinical PG students (2.99 ± 0.217) received significantly higher scores than pre/paraclinical PG students (2.68 ± 0.176) (T-test value = 10.9262, p < 0.0001).

Conclusion: This study highlights the disparity in professionalism scores between clinical and pre/para-clinical students, suggesting a tailored approach might be beneficial. In order to improve the attitude towards professionalism, structured courses/workshops should be inculcated into the PG training curriculum. Continuous evaluation of professionalism throughout medical training can lead to better preparedness for future professional roles.