Back to all available

Perceptions and attitudes of medical interns at five tertiary public hospitals in a city towards the application of 3D Printing Technology in medicine

biotechnology
nursing
medical-education
materials-engineering

Abstract

Objective: The study aims to conduct a survey among medical interns in order to gain insights into the utilization of 3D printing technology in clinical learning.
Methods: The survey involved 506 medical interns across various specialties in clinical studies at five tertiary public hospitals in Hefei, Anhui Province. A Chinese version of a questionnaire from Silesian Medical University in Poland, mainly focusing on respondents’ knowledge of 3D printing technology and its applications in medicine.
Results: The survey revealed Men students interacted more with 3D-printed medical models than women. Clinical medicine students had more exposure to 3D printing than nursing students. Medical Image students expressed more uncertainty about the viability of 3D printing human body tissues compared to other specialty students. Anaesthesiology students felt less secure when assessing the safety of 3D-printed implants, in contrast to Accouche, Clinical Medicine, and Medical Image counterparts. Medical Image students displayed less interest in 3D printing training.
Conclusion : Survey findings offer insights for 3D printing integration in medical education, stressing broader dissemination of knowledge within the medical community. It emphasizes prioritizing safety and ethics in 3D bioprinting application and research.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].