It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Background The objective of the present study was to describe the knowledge regarding the antibiotic therapy of students of three medical schools in Medellín, Colombia.
Methods The study population comprised medical students who were enrolled in three universities. The instrument contained questions regarding their current academic term, the university, the perceived quality of the education received on antibiotic therapy and bacterial resistance, and specific questions on upper respiratory tract infections, pneumonia, urinary tract infections, and skin and soft tissue infections. The information was analyzed by calculating frequencies and measures of dispersion and central tendency. Knowledge regarding the treatment for each type of infection was compared using the Mann–Whitney U test and the Kruskal–Wallis H test.
Results We included 536 medical students, of which 43.5% students consider that the university has not sufficiently trained them to interpret antibiograms and 29.6% students consider that the quality of information received on the subject at their university ranges from regular to poor. The mean score for knowledge regarding antibiotic therapy for upper respiratory tract infections was 44.2 (9.9) on a scale from 0 to 100. The median score with regard to the treatment of pneumonia was 52.9 (14.7), that of urinary tract infection was 58.7 (14.8), and that of skin and soft tissue infections was 63.1 (19.4). The knowledge regarding antibiotic therapy for upper respiratory tract infections, pneumonia, and urinary tract infection does not improve with the academic term, the university, or perceived quality of the education received.
Conclusion A large proportion of medical students perceive that the training received from the university is insufficient with regard to antibiotic use and bacterial resistance, which is consistent with the limited knowledge reflected in the selection of antibiotic treatment for respiratory, urinary tract, and skin and soft tissue infections. Overall, the situation was identical among all universities, and it did not significantly increase with the completion of an academic term.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer