Study design
Given the multidimensional nature of medical science theses, which generally relate to complex human activities, they cannot be approached from an exclusively technical perspective; therefore, a mixed methods study with an exploratory sequential design was selected. In the exploratory sequential approach, the researcher begins with a qualitative research phase and explores the participants’ perspectives. Next, the data is analyzed and the information is used in a second quantitative phase. The qualitative phase can be used to construct an instrument that best fits the sample studied (17).
Setting
The study was conducted at the Education Development Center of Kerman University of Medical Sciences. The qualitative part of the study was carried out from February to April 2021. The quantitative part was carried out from April to June 2021.
Literature search
We conducted non-systematic literature searches on Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, ERIC and Scopus with the keywords “thesis”, “alternative”, “student”, “medicine”, “dentistry”, “pharmacy” and “ dissertation”. » followed by additional searches of the reference lists of relevant articles. We used this literature to (i) inform the design of this study, (ii) design the guidelines for the focus group meeting and questionnaire, and, most importantly, (iii) identify possible alternative topics that could also be studied in other settings.
Qualitative sampling and recruitment
For the qualitative component, we used purposive sampling. The emphasis was on “deliberate selection of information-rich cases.” (18). The primary inclusion criteria for focus group participants were: (i) faculty members with experience in educational activities in schools of medicine, dentistry, and pharmacy, (ii) faculty members having experience supervising medicine, dentistry and pharmacy. student theses, and (iii) students interested in participating in the educational development affairs of the university from the schools of medicine, dentistry and pharmacy. Participants included 16 faculty members and 4 students. They were invited by email and then the invitations were confirmed in person.
Qualitative data collection
The focus group meeting lasted 90 minutes. At the beginning of the meeting, we gave participants a brief description of the results of the literature review. Then, the general question was asked to the participants: “What alternative topics can be used to diversify the theses of students in medicine, dentistry and pharmacy?” » and continued with specific questions based on the discussion. With the help of the facilitator, participants discussed the alternative topics, resolved clarity issues, and combined the related alternative topics into a single item and clarifications were provided. In case of disagreement, the person who proposed the alternative topics could decide whether or not to combine them with another point. Similar alternative topics were grouped together in group discussions and a label was selected for each area. The facilitator (SN) tried to involve all participants in the discussion and gave everyone the opportunity to comment, explain and interpret their point of view. All conversations were recorded and notes were taken of the discussions and points raised.
Qualitative data analysis
The qualitative data was analyzed using the conventional content analysis method, which uses inductive content analysis (19). The transcript has been revised several times for better understanding and general understanding. Next, the transcript was divided into meaning units. Meaning units were coded and similarly coded units were interpreted for shared meaning. MS analyzed the focus group text and wrote the manuscript. SN and RM performed separate analysis of large portions of the text, and consensus was reached through discussions where differences in analysis emerged.
Quantitative sampling and recruitment
The quantitative component included all focus group participants.
Quantitative data collection
Informed by qualitative research findings, we developed a questionnaire comprising 18 items to evaluate alternative topics extracted to diversify medical, dental, and pharmacy student dissertations. This questionnaire evaluated each topic based on certain criteria, including “leading to learning research skills”, “leading to lifelong learning” and “leading to learning decision-making based on evidence. Questionnaire items were rated using a 5-point Likert scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree, scored from 5 to 1, for statistical comparison.
Content validity was examined by calculating the content validity rate (CVR) and content validity index (CVI). The minimum acceptable CVR was 0.62, according to Lawshe’s table. The formula for calculating the CVI in the Waltz and Bausell method is the number of all respondents to the criteria of “relevance”, “clarity” and “simplicity” divided by the number of experts who gave a rating of 3 or 4 to the relevant question in this criterion. In this formula, if an item has a score greater than 0.79, this item remains in the questionnaire. If the CVI is between 0.70 and 0.79, the item should be corrected and revised and if it is less than 0.70, the item is unacceptable and should be omitted. Face validity was explored by the expert’s comments on the simplicity of the questions and their flow. Reliability assessment was studied by Cronbach’s alpha. An internal consistency greater than 0.7 was considered appropriate.
After investigating reliability and validity, the final electronic version of the questionnaire was sent to the focus group participants. It was redistributed again about two weeks apart via email and also followed up via social media.
Quantitative data analysis
We performed descriptive analysis using SPSS version 20.3 (i.e. mean value and standard deviation).
Ethics approval
The Research Ethics Committee of the National Agency for Strategic Research in Medical Education approved the study (No. IR.NASRME.REC.1400.038). Participants received no incentives and participation was voluntary. Verbal consent for participation was obtained based on the proposal approved by the ethics committee.
