In general the results per medical school, for both the tests and the questionnaire, did not differ from the pooled results except for a lack of statistical significance in unpaired analyses in Kathmandu, Lagos, Newcastle and San Francisco, usually due to low student numbers.
In the MANOVA and matched-pair analyses of open questions A1-A2- A3 and A-B-C, the individual results in Yogyakarta and Delhi were also statistically significant. As an example, the MANOVA analysis results from Yogyakarta are summarized in Table 8, Other data are available upon request.
Table 3 MANOVA analysis of open questions, compared with A1 (Yogyakarta)
n=20 |
A2 |
P |
A3 |
P |
1. Patient problem |
2.17 |
.000 |
2.38 |
.000 |
2. Therapeutic goal |
1.05 |
.002 |
1.61 |
.000 |
3. Verify suitability |
1.89 |
.000 |
1.5 |
.000 |
4. Write prescription |
0.86 |
.000 |
0.61 |
.024 |
5. Inform patient |
1.83 |
.000 |
2.22 |
.000 |
6. Monitor treatment |
1.17 |
.000 |
1.83 |
.000 |
| |
B |
P |
C |
P |
1. Patient problem |
2.00 |
.000 |
1.78 |
.000 |
2. Therapeutic goal |
1.89 |
.000 |
1.44 |
.004 |
3. Verify suitability |
1.61 |
.000 |
0.67 |
1.44 |
4. Write prescription |
1.00 |
.000 |
2.27 |
3.62 |
5. Inform patient |
1.78 |
.000 |
1.72 |
.000 |
6. Monitor treatment |
1.17 |
.003 |
1.39 |
.002 |
Loading...
