ABSTRACT
Introduction All medics require statistical interpretation skills to keep up to date with the scientific advances and evidence-based recommendations of their specific field. However, statistical illiteracy among clinicians is a highly prevalent problem with far-reaching consequences. The few available studies that report statistical literacy improvements after educational interventions do not report for how long these benefits last. We measured for the first-time statistical proficiency among Latin-American clinicians with different levels of training and evaluated the efficacy of a 10-hour course at multiple timepoints.
Methods Using an online questionnaire, we evaluated self-perceived statistical proficiency, scientific literature reading habits and statistical literacy (using an adaptation of the Quick Risk Test) across multiple levels of medical training. Separately, we evaluated statistical proficiency among Internal Medicine residents at a tertiary centre in Mexico City immediately before, immediately after and one and two months after a 10-hour statistics course using the same adaptation (allowing for “I don’t know” answers) of the Quick Risk Test. Scores across multiple time points were compared using Friedman’s Test.
Results Data from 392 clinicians from 9 Latin American countries were analyzed. Most clinicians (85%) failed our adaptation of the Quick Risk Test (mean score = 2.6/10, IQR:1.4). The 10-hour course significantly improved the scores of the Internal Medicine Residents (n=16) from 3.8/10, IQR:1.8 to 8.3/10, IQR:1.4 (p<0.01). However, scores dropped after one and two months to 7.7/10, IQR:1.6 and 6.1 / 10, IQR:2.2, respectively.
Conclusions Statistical Illiteracy is highly prevalent among Latin American clinicians. Short-term educational interventions are effective but, their benefits quickly fade away if they are not periodically reinforced. Medical boards and Medical schools need to periodically teach and evaluate statistical proficiency to ameliorate these issues.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study received no funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study and its methods were reviewed and approved by y the Ethics Committee of the National Institute of Medical Sciences and Nutrition Salvador Zubiran on September 29th, 2020 (Reg. No. SEN-3516-20-21-1). Data were anonymized, and its collection followed Good Clinical Practice Standards.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data for research purposes will be shared upon request to the corresponding author. Dr Adrian Soto-Mota is the guarantor of the integrity of this work.
