Table 5.
Propensity score matched analysis based on an experimental thesis
| CPKD (N = 60) | Control (N = 60) | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, mean [years (IQT)] | 27 (25, 29) | 31 (28, 35) | < 0.001 |
| Sex [N (%)] | |||
| Male | 32 (53.3) | 30 (50.0) | 0.855 |
| Female | 28 (46.7) | 30 (50.0) | |
| Diverse | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| Thesis [N (%)] | |||
| Theoretical | 2 (3.3) | 2 (3.3) | 1.000 |
| Clinical | 3 (5.0) | 4 (6.7) | |
| Experimental | 58 (96.7) | 58 (96.7) | |
| Biomedical background of parents [N (%)] | 28 (46.7) | 19 (31.7) | 0.135 |
| Education background of parents [N (%)] | 16 (27.1) | 14 (24.1) | 0.875 |
| HS-GPA [mean (SD)] | 1.33 (0.40) | 1.50 (0.49) | 0.035 |
| SE-GPA [mean (SD)] | 2.19 (0.56) | 2.42 (0.94) | 0.101 |
| Number of supervisors (> 2) [N (%)] | 18 (30.0) | 8 (13.3) | 0.006 |
| Satisfaction supervision [mean (SD)] | 6.93 (3.14) | 7.20 (2.87) | 0.628 |
| Satisfaction daily work [mean (SD)] | 6.92 (2.77) | 7.15 (2.50) | 0.629 |
| Satisfaction outcome [mean (SD)] | 6.70 (3.03) | 7.12 (2.84) | 0.439 |
| Conduct thesis again [mean (SD)] | 46 (76.7) | 37 (61.7) | 0.114 |
| Relevance MD thesis (> 5) [N (%)] | 36 (60) | 24 (40) | 0.08 |
| First-author publications [mean (SD)] | 0.62 (1.51) | 0.43 (0.65) | 0.389 |
| Co-author publications [mean (SD)] | 0.80 (1.77) | 0.48 (0.72) | 0.203 |
| Attendance congresses [N (%)] | 41 (68.3) | 20 (33.3) | < 0.001 |
| Rewards [N (%)] | 23 (38.3) | 6 (10.0) | 0.001 |
| Current projects [N (%)] | 30 (50.0) | 11 (18.3) | 0.001 |
| Participation CSP [N (%)] | 7 (11.7) | 2 (3.3) | 0.166 |
| Pursue CSP [N (%)] | 27 (45.0) | 12 (20.0) | 0.006 |
| Publications after thesis [mean (SD)] | 51 (85.0) | 49 (81.7) | 0.806 |
The analyses of participant characteristics, subjective and objective outcome parameters, and the sustainable integration in scientific research are depicted. Significant p-values are highlighted in bold