Aim To examine the contribution of programme year and demographic factors to medical students’ perceptions of evidence-based classification categories of professional misconduct.
Methods Students at an Irish medical school were administered a cross-sectional survey comprising 31 vignettes of professional misconduct, which mapped onto a 12-category classification system. Students scored each item using a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 represents the least severe form of misconduct and 5 the most severe.
Results Of the 1012 eligible respondents, 561 students completed the survey, providing a response rate of 55%. Items pertaining to disclosure of conflict of interest were ranked as the least severe examples of professional misconduct, and this perception was highest among finalyear students. While ratings of severity declined for items related to ‘inappropriate conduct not in relation to patient’ and ‘inappropriate use of social media’ between years 1 and 3, ratings for both categories increased again among clinical cycle (fourth and final year) students.
Conclusions Increased clinical exposure during years 4 and 5 of the undergraduate programme was associated with better recognition of the importance of selected professional domains. Disclosure of conflict of interest is identified as an area of medical professionalism that requires greater emphasis for students who are at the point of transition from student to doctor.
- professional misconduct
- demographic surveys/attitudes
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors JZ and CO’T designed the study, collected and analysed the data, and were involved in the preparation of the manuscript. BN, DB and SO’F were involved in data analysis and interpretation, and the preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the Cork Teaching Hospitals.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Mandatory disclosure of financial interests of journals and editors
- Conflict of interest policies and disclosure requirements among European Society of Cardiology national cardiovascular journals
- How do authors of systematic reviews deal with research malpractice and misconduct in original studies? A cross-sectional analysis of systematic reviews and survey of their authors
- Croatian medical students see academic dishonesty as an acceptable behaviour: a cross-sectional multicampus study
- Towards a practical definition of professional behaviour
- Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics: results of an international survey
- Improving researchers’ conflict of interest declarations
- Removal of doctors from practice for professional misconduct in Australia and New Zealand
- Discrepancies in self-reported financial conflicts of interest disclosures by physicians: a systematic review
- Learning the law: practical proposals for UK medical education