Quantitative analysis reveals that basic nuclear medicine knowledge significantly improves clinical practice readiness in radiology students, suggesting a need for curriculum enhancement.
Nuclear medicine is a rapidly evolving diagnostic and therapeutic field in modern medical practice, offering innovative approaches for the early detection and management of a wide range of diseases, from oncology to cardiology. The increasing complexity of nuclear imaging and radiopharmaceutical technologies demands a deep understanding from healthcare professionals, particularly radiology students who will be at the forefront of their implementation. While the importance of a basic knowledge of nuclear medicine is widely recognized, recent data demonstrate significant gaps in the practical preparedness of radiology students at many institutions, potentially hindering the quality of care and patient safety. This research gap specifically lies in the lack of quantitative understanding of the extent to which the level of basic nuclear medicine knowledge correlates with the level of clinical practice readiness of radiology students, as well as the specific factors that influence this relationship. This study aimed to quantitatively quantify the relationship between the level of basic nuclear medicine knowledge and clinical practice readiness of radiology students and to identify key predictor variables within the framework of Bandura's social cognitive learning theory. The primary hypothesis was that a higher level of basic nuclear medicine knowledge would be positively and significantly correlated with better clinical practice readiness in radiology students. This study design employed a quantitative correlational approach with a transversal survey method, chosen for its efficiency in measuring relationships between variables at a single point in time. A total of 250 radiology students from various semesters at a leading university in Indonesia participated in this study, selected using a stratified random sampling technique to ensure adequate representation from each semester group. The research instrument consisted of a structured questionnaire consisting of two main parts: first, a previously validated basic nuclear medicine knowledge questionnaire with a Cronbach's Alpha value of 0.87, and second, a clinical practice readiness questionnaire developed based on the domains of clinical competencies in nuclear medicine, with high inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.92). Data were collected through an online platform and analyzed using multiple linear regression analysis to test hypotheses and identify predictors. The analysis results showed a statistically significant positive relationship between the level of basic nuclear medicine knowledge and clinical practice readiness of radiology students (r = 0.65, p < 0.001). The level of nuclear medicine knowledge was a strong predictor of clinical practice readiness, explaining 42.3% of the variance (R² = 0.423, F(1, 248) = 181.5, p < 0.001). Secondary analysis revealed that previous practicum experience (β = 0.32, p < 0.01) and perceived self-efficacy (β = 0.25, p < 0.05) were also significant predictors of clinical practice readiness. A significant unexpected finding was that students who participated in nuclear medicine seminars or workshops outside the formal curriculum demonstrated substantially higher levels of practice readiness, even when controlling for basic knowledge levels. This study concludes that basic nuclear medicine knowledge is a crucial factor positively correlated with clinical practice readiness in radiology students. The theoretical contribution of this study strengthens social cognitive learning theory in the context of radiology education, while its practical contribution provides a basis for developing a more comprehensive curriculum and targeted learning interventions. Key recommendations include deeper integration of nuclear medicine content into the curriculum, as well as the development of active learning support programs such as simulations and case studies to enhance students' practice readiness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Purba et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: