Attitudes toward and perceptions of barriers to research among medical students in the context of an educational and motivational strategy

Abstract

Background

Scientific research is a key component of medical education, fostering critical thinking and evidence-based practice. However, international studies have reported wide variability in medical students’ attitudes toward research, shaped by institutional culture, exposure, and curricular design. In parallel, perceived barriers—such as academic overload, lack of mentorship, and insufficient training—are frequently cited as major obstacles that limit student involvement. Understanding students’ predispositions and the barriers they face is essential for developing effective strategies, especially in educational contexts where research participation is limited. This study aimed to evaluate the situation at a private medical school in Ecuador.

Objective

To evaluate medical students’ attitudes toward and perceptions of barriers to research and to analyze changes in these variables following an educational and motivational intervention.

Methods

A quasiexperimental study (without a control group) was conducted with 90 undergraduate medical students. The intervention consisted of educational and motivational audiovisual content delivered over one month. A validated questionnaire assessed students’ attitudes and perceived barriers before and after the intervention. Descriptive statistics and a one-sample t-test were used to assess changes.

Results

Prior to the intervention, the mean attitude score was 104.72, well above the scale midpoint (78), indicating a generally favorable predisposition. Most students (73.3%) scored above 75% of the maximum possible score in attitudes. For perceived barriers, the initial mean was 109.61, also above the scale midpoint (87), reflecting a high level of perceived obstacles. A total of 96.7% of students scored above 50%, with key concerns related to time constraints, lack of mentorship, and insufficient training in scientific writing and statistics. After the intervention, both the mean attitude score and the mean barrier score remained statistically unchanged.

Conclusions

Although the intervention produced a small increase in favorable attitudes, it did not reduce perceived barriers. These findings suggest that short, self-directed strategies are insufficient to address institutional challenges. More effective approaches may require long-term, interactive programs supported by curricular integration, structured mentorship, and institutional investment to foster meaningful research engagement among medical students.

Trial registration

Not applicable.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-025-07229-0.

Background

Scientific research is an essential component of the training of medical students since it allows them to develop critical competencies pertaining to the interpretation and generation of scientific knowledge. In an era of constant medical advances, research training is essential to promote evidence-based practice and foster the ability to analyze scientific literature critically [1, 2]. Thus, for example, the COVID-19 pandemic emphasized the importance of these skills, thus highlighting the need for professionals who can analyze and apply scientific information in crisis situations. Despite the relevance of training in research, many educational programs do not include such training, thus limiting the development of students’ skills in this area [3].

This deficiency is reflected in the lower scientific productivity and quality of publications frequently observed in low- and middle-income countries in comparison with developed countries [4, 5]. In addition, the rates at which medical students participate in research vary considerably, and a number of barriers that can hinder their full participation in scientific activities have been identified, including the lack of time, resources and mentoring; these issue limit the ability of medical students to develop key competencies in the field of medicine in an evidence-based manner [4–6]. Although medical programs often include research training, students face multiple limitations with respect to their potential participation in scientific projects. These challenges tend to demotivate students, thereby restricting their development in key areas pertaining to medical practice with the support of empirical evidence [4, 5, 7].

Given these limitations, strategies that can promote a culture of research are crucial beginning in the early stages of medical training. The incorporation of basic research principles, such as those pertaining to biostatistics, epidemiology, and scientific methodology, into medical curricula can enhance students’ analytical skills and encourage them to generate new knowledge [5, 6]. However, efforts to improve these competencies must address students’ attitudes and perceived barriers through innovative approaches that combine motivation with practical learning [7, 8]. This study analyzes undergraduate medical students’ attitudes toward and perceptions of barriers to research and evaluates the changes that occur in these variables after the introduction of an educational and motivational intervention. This intervention was based on audiovisual content and was designed through a process that featured the participation of teachers and students from the Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja (UTPL) in Ecuador.

Methods

Study design

A quasiexperimental study that featured an educational and motivational intervention design was conducted to evaluate a group solely based on a posttest; no control group was included in this research. The intervention consisted of evaluating participants’ attitudes toward and perceptions of barriers to research (i.e., the dependent variables) based on a questionnaire that was administered both before and after the intervention. The questionnaire used in this study was adapted from the instrument developed by Memarpour et al. [6], as detailed below. However, participants’ responses before the intervention were not matched with their responses on the posttest, since to preserve anonymity and maximize complete responses, data that could be used to identify students were omitted. Preintervention values were used as test values to evaluate the postintervention changes since no previous values have been established with respect to the variables under investigation in the context of this population.

Participants

This study included undergraduate medical students from the Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja (UTPL) who were enrolled in the course called “Titulación 1” (hereafter referred to as the Thesis Preparation Course). This course is the first of three sequential research training courses designed to prepare students for their thesis projects and to strengthen their research competencies. These courses are taken during the final three semesters of the medical program, alongside other subjects, just before students begin their clinical internships. Among the 91 students enrolled in this first-level course between October 2023 and August 2024, 90 participated in this study.

This study did not use a sampling strategy; instead, it included the entire population of undergraduate medical students enrolled in the Thesis Preparation Course between October 2023 and August 2024. A total of 91 students were registered on the course during this period. The inclusion criteria focused on students who were over 18 years old and were taking the course for the first time. The exclusion criteria included students with prior research experience or those actively involved in ongoing research projects.

All 91 students were initially considered for participation; however, one was excluded due to their active involvement in a research project at the time of recruitment, resulting in a final sample of 90 students. All participants signed an informed consent form before completing the pre- and post-intervention questionnaires.

Instruments

The questionnaire used in this study was based on the instrument developed by Memarpour et al. [6]. While the original version was designed for medical, dental, and pharmacy students, and had been applied to both undergraduate and postgraduate populations, it was specifically adapted in this study for Spanish-speaking undergraduate medical students. The adaptation process included not only translation into Spanish but also structural and contextual modifications to reflect the academic environment, curricular features, and terminology relevant to undergraduate medical education at our university.

The instrument was then validated by a panel of three experts using the content validity coefficient (CVC). Items with a CVC below 0.80 were eliminated. The original questionnaire included 27 items measuring attitudes and 32 items assessing perceived barriers to research, all rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Following expert panel evaluation, the final adapted Spanish questionnaire included 26 items assessing attitudes (CVC = 0.938) and 29 items evaluating perceived barriers to research (CVC = 0.922). Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree to 5 = totally agree), with higher scores indicating more favorable attitudes toward research and stronger perceptions of barriers.

The reliability of the instrument was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, yielding values of 0.870 for attitudes and 0.953 for perceived barriers, indicating high internal consistency. This reliability analysis was conducted on the questionnaire responses collected during its first administration, specifically from the undergraduate students participating in this study at the time of the initial evaluation.

Intervention

The intervention consisted of a structured educational and motivational audiovisual strategy designed to strengthen students’ research competencies, enhance their attitudes toward research, and address perceived barriers. This strategy was implemented over one month and included the dissemination of 15 educational videos and 5 motivational capsules, all specifically created for undergraduate medical students enrolled in the Thesis Preparation Course.

The educational videos, ranging in duration from 4.56 to 22.38 min (mean duration: 13.66 min), covered fundamental topics in biomedical research methodology, including formulation of research questions, study design, literature search and citation, statistical analysis, ethical considerations, data management, and scientific writing. These videos were developed by experts in biomedical research and incorporated dynamic visual resources such as PowerPoint presentations, animations, and interactive tools like SPSS, Excel, and Mendeley to facilitate comprehension.

The motivational capsules, with a duration range of 2.59 to 4.23 min (mean duration: 3.43 min), featured testimonials from students with prior research experience, who shared their insights on the challenges and benefits of engaging in research. These videos aimed to increase students’ motivation to participate in research and reduce perceived barriers by providing practical advice on time management, mentorship opportunities, and strategies for overcoming common obstacles in research involvement.

All audiovisual materials were made available via YouTube and integrated into the university’s virtual learning environment to ensure easy and unrestricted access for students. The full collection of videos can be accessed through the following playlist: https://youtube.com/playlist? list=PLKiIhBZ1QsqqYGhs-aiE07_dMPHQB5pxX&si=MO6tlFVQyOOQWBJ5.

Weekly reminders were sent via WhatsApp to encourage engagement with the content and reinforce participation. To evaluate the impact of the intervention, students completed a pre-intervention questionnaire, followed by a four-week period during which they could view the videos at their own pace. One month later, the post-intervention questionnaire was administered to assess potential changes in attitudes toward research and perceived barriers.

Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the University of Portoviejo, Ecuador (CEISH ITSUP Code: 1686978859). Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all students before the study.

Sources of Bias and mitigation strategies

Several potential sources of bias were considered in this study. The lack of a control group in the quasi-experimental design limited the ability to establish causal relationships between the intervention and the observed outcomes. To mitigate this, pre-intervention scores were used as a reference to assess changes within the same cohort. Additionally, the anonymous nature of the questionnaires prevented the pairing of individual pre- and post-intervention responses, which could affect the precision of individual-level comparisons. To address this, the study focused on evaluating overall cohort trends rather than individual progress. Furthermore, since students had the flexibility to access the educational and motivational videos at their own pace, variations in exposure could have influenced the results. Weekly reminders were sent via WhatsApp to encourage engagement with the material. The intervention’s one-month duration may have also been insufficient to produce substantial changes, particularly in perceived research barriers. Finally, as the study was conducted in a single institution, generalizability to other academic settings may be limited. Future research should consider implementing structured, long-term interventions across multiple institutions to validate these findings.

Statistical analysis

To describe the baseline characteristics of the cohort, a descriptive analysis was first performed by comparing the initial scores of attitudes toward research and perceived research barriers against the scale midpoint. This midpoint was calculated as the average of the minimum and maximum possible scores for each construct, based on the fixed response ranges of the Likert-type scales used in the questionnaire (e.g., for attitudes: minimum = 26, maximum = 130; midpoint = 78; for perceived barriers: minimum = 29, maximum = 145; midpoint = 87). This value was used solely as a descriptive benchmark to contextualize the pre-intervention mean scores and was not used for hypothesis testing.

In addition, a second descriptive analysis was performed to examine how students’ scores were distributed across percentage intervals relative to the maximum possible score. This quartile-based distribution, used in the original validation study by Memarpour et al. [6], allowed us to explore score patterns beyond the mean, highlighting trends in the proportion of students falling within specific ranges: <25%, 26–50%, 51–75%, and > 75%.

Additionally, for each item related to participants’ attitudes toward research and perceived barriers, we calculated the percentage achieved relative to the maximum possible score before and after the intervention, based on the responses from the entire student cohort.

Since the questionnaire responses were anonymous, it was not possible to pair individual pre- and post-intervention data. Therefore, the one-sample t-test was used to evaluate the changes resulting from the intervention, treating the group-level pre-intervention mean as the test value against which average post-intervention scores were compared. The assumption of normality was verified using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests, confirming the normal distribution of the variables (p > 0.05). The hypotheses evaluated were as follows: H0 stated that the post-intervention mean was equal to the test value, and H1 proposed a difference between the post-intervention mean and the test value. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS Statistics version 22 for Windows.

Results

In the initial evaluation, the average score for students’ attitudes toward research was 104.72 points, which was higher than the scale midpoint (78) (Table 1). Most of the students reported attitude scores corresponding to more than 75% of the maximum possible score (Table 2). The attitude items with the highest percentages relative to the maximum possible score were primarily related to the importance of science and research in medical education and practice, as well as the usefulness of research skills in professional development. Specifically, students strongly agree that science enhances the understanding of the world, that all health science professionals should be familiar with the scientific method, and that research should be an integral part of their training. Additionally, they recognized that research improves critical thinking and that the skills acquired through research activities would be beneficial for their future medical careers (Table 3).

Table 1.

Comparison of cohort mean scores for students’ attitudes and perceived research barriers pre- and post-intervention

Variable	Possible Score Range	Scale Midpoint	Test Value (PreInt Mean)	PostInt Mean	t	df	P value	Mean Score Difference	95% CI for Mean Difference
Attitudes	26–130	78	104.72	106.72	1.852	89	0.067	2.002	−0.15–4.15
Perceived Barriers	29–145	87	109.61	109.84	0.117	89	0.907	0.234	−3.74–4.21

Abbreviations: PreInt: Preintervention; PostInt: Postintervention; CI: confidence interval; t: t-test value; df: degrees of freedom

Notes:

This table presents the comparison of mean scores for attitudes toward research and perceived research barriers before and after the intervention, based on responses from the cohort of undergraduate medical students. The Possible Score Range refers to the minimum and maximum values that could be obtained for each variable according to the Likert-type scale used (1–5 points per item). The Scale Midpoint refers to the numerical average between the minimum and maximum possible scores for each construct. It is not derived from normative data but serves as a descriptive reference point to contextualize the observed scores within the full range of the scale. In this study, it was used solely to describe and interpret the cohort’s pre-intervention scores and was not employed for hypothesis testing. Since the questionnaire responses were anonymous, it was not possible to pair individual pre- and post-intervention data. Therefore, the one-sample t-test was used to evaluate the changes resulting from the intervention, treating the group-level pre-intervention mean as the test value against which post-intervention scores were compared. The test value (PreInt Mean) was obtained by administering the questionnaire to the same students before the intervention. The Mean Score Difference represents the difference between the Pre-Intervention Mean and the Post-Intervention Mean, showing the change in scores after the intervention

Table 2.

Students’ attitude and perceived barrier scores by percentage of maximum score

Percentage of Maximum Possible Score	Attitudes				Perceptions of Barriers
	PreInt		PostInt		PreInt		PostInt
	%	(N)	%	(N)	%	(N)	%	(N)
< 25%	0%	(0)	0%	(0)	0%	(0)	0%	(0)
26–50%	1.1%	(1)	0%	(0)	3.3%	(3)	2.2%	(2)
51–75%	25.5%	(23)	17.8%	(16)	51.1%	(46)	46.7%	(42)
> 75%	73.3%	(66)	82.2%	(74)	45.6%	(41)	51.1%	(46)

Abbreviations: PreInt: Preintervention; PostInt: Postintervention

Notes:

Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree to 5 = totally agree), with higher scores indicating more favorable attitudes toward research and stronger perceptions of barriers. Scores are presented by quartile, based on the percentage of the maximum possible score for each scale

Table 3.

Percentage achieved relative to maximum possible scores pre- and post-intervention for top attitude items

Ranking	Attitude item	Percentage
		PreInt	PostInt
1	Science provides a better understanding of the world.	98,4	97,1
2	Knowledge is necessary to achieve meaningful results from the scientific method.	93,7	91,3
3	All health science professionals should be familiar with the scientific method.	93,3	93,7
4	Research should be included in the training of all students.	92	88,6
5	The skills I acquire during research will be useful in my future work.	90,2	89,7
6	Conducting research is important for becoming a specialist.	89,5	90,2
7	Research is beneficial because it enhances critical thinking.	88,6	90,4
8	I want to publish the results of any research I have conducted.	87,5	86,2
9	Medical students can design and conduct a research project and write a scientific article.	87,3	85,3
10	Medical students should engage in research during their studies.	86,4	88,8
11	I plan to use research as part of my professional work.	86,4	86,6
12	I would be happy to participate in research classes (willingness to enroll in research courses).	85,3	83,3
13	Research education should be mandatory in the student curriculum.	83,1	82,8
14	The impact factor of a journal is the most important factor when selecting where to submit a scientific article.	82,8	85,3
15	Direct thinking and reflection on research play an important role in my daily life.	80,4	79,7

Abbreviations: PreInt: Preintervention; PostInt: Postintervention

Notes:

This table presents the percentage of the maximum possible score achieved for each attitude item related to research before and after the intervention. Only the fifteen items with the highest pre-intervention percentages are included

Regarding students’ perceptions of barriers, the average score obtained was 109.61 points, which was higher than the scale midpoint (87) (Table 1). More than half of the students (56.7%) had scores above 75% of the maximum possible score for perceived barriers, while only 3.3% were below the 25% threshold (Table 2). The main difficulties perceived by the participants were primarily related to time constraints and academic workload, as many students expressed that the demands of their curriculum and clinical responsibilities limited their ability to engage in research. Additionally, a lack of knowledge and skills in research methodology, statistical analysis, and scientific writing were reported as significant obstacles. Another major concern was the limited availability of research mentors and structured research opportunities, which students perceived as restricting their ability to participate in investigative projects. Finally, institutional barriers, such as insufficient financial support and lack of formal recognition for research activities, were also highlighted as factors hindering research engagement (Table 4).

Table 4.

Percentage achieved relative to maximum possible scores pre- and post-intervention for top perceived barriers

Ranking	Perceived Research Barrier Item	Percentage
		PreInt	PostInt
1	I lack sufficient time to conduct research.	85,5	83,1
2	The research methodology training I received was insufficient.	82	79,3
3	I lack statistical knowledge to conduct research.	80,8	79,7
4	I do not know how to write a scientific article.	80,2	79,5
5	I have no experience presenting research results at scientific events.	80,2	76,4
6	I feel that conducting research is not a priority in my academic training.	79,3	74
7	I do not know how to apply for research funding.	78,6	78,6
8	I feel that there is a lack of institutional support for students to conduct research.	78,4	80
9	The workload of my courses prevents me from dedicating time to research.	77,7	77,5
10	I am afraid of making mistakes when conducting research.	77,7	78,6
11	I find it difficult to understand scientific texts and articles.	76,8	80,4
12	I do not know how to formulate a research hypothesis.	76,8	77,5
13	There are not enough research mentors available at my university.	76,8	75,7
14	I do not feel confident in my ability to conduct research.	76,2	76,4
15	I believe that research is only useful for those who want an academic career.	76,6	76,8

Abbreviations: PreInt: Preintervention; PostInt: Postintervention

Notes:

This table presents the percentage of the maximum possible score achieved for each perceived barrier item before and after the intervention. Only the fifteen items with the highest pre-intervention percentages are included

Following the intervention, no statistically significant changes were observed in terms of participants’ average attitudes (p = 0.067) or perceptions of barriers (p = 0.907) beyond the level established by the initial test values. The proportion of students with scores above 75% of the maximum possible value for attitudes increased from 73.3–82.2%, while the percentage of students with perceived barrier scores above 75% rose from 45.6–51.1% (Table 2). These changes were not statistically significant but are described to illustrate score distribution trends across time points

Discussion

This study revealed that undergraduate medical students demonstrated a high level of favorable attitudes toward scientific research even before the intervention. Specifically, 98.8% of students scored above 50% of the maximum possible score in attitudes, and 73.3% exceeded 75% at baseline. These results reflect a widespread recognition of the relevance of scientific research in medical training and professional development, which has also been observed in previous studies conducted in similar settings [9, 10].

Several studies conducted across diverse geographic and academic contexts have reported high or very favorable attitudes toward research among medical students, despite potential contextual limitations. In Iran, Memarpour et al. (2015) found that 64% of participants scored above 75% of the maximum possible score in attitudes.The authors attributed this positive outcome to the emphasis on research training in the academic environment and the presence of faculty role models [6]. In Saudi Arabia, Alduraibi et al. (2024) reported that 84.5% of students considered research important, despite limited involvement, suggesting that curricular emphasis and perceived academic benefits may have shaped this attitude [11]. In India, Sharma et al. (2021) found that 84.2% of students exhibited a favorable attitude, which was associated with institutional encouragement and perceived career advantages [12]. Similarly, Chellaiyan et al. (2019) found that 84% considered research important, citing exposure through workshops and lectures as influential [13]. In South America, particularly in Panama, Silva et al. (2013) observed that 86% of students valued research in medical training, a finding they linked to structured curricular content [14]. In Brazil, Figueiredo et al. (2020) reported strong research interest in 86% of students, especially those who believed it improved academic performance and future competitiveness [9]. In Peru, Ipanaqué-Zapata et al. (2023) documented an increase in attitudes after research training, attributing the improvement to hands-on methodological instruction and mentor support [15]. These findings are consistent with our results reinforcing the relevance of institutional support and early exposure to scientific competencies.

Conversely, several investigations conducted in both developed and developing countries have reported lower or moderate attitudes toward research. In Pakistan, Bilal et al. (2019) found that only 57.4% of students had a favorable attitude, and 18.5% reported unfavorable views. The authors associated this with insufficient exposure to research activities and limited training opportunities [16]. Although the study dates to 2007, it is worth highlighting the findings of Shuval et al. in the United States, where 60% of public health students reported a lack of interest in research careers. This disinterest was attributed to factors such as insufficient financial incentives, limited job stability, and unclear research career pathways [17]. In India, Pallamparty et al. (2020) found that less than half of the students expressed willingness to pursue research, attributing the low interest to the pressure of academic workload and the perception that research had little impact on clinical success [18]. Similarly, in the Netherlands, Van der Linden et al. (2015) reported low interest in research among medical students, which they linked to a dominant clinical orientation in training and lack of exposure to research during early academic years [19]. In Jordan, Abusamak et al. (2024) found that only 36.4% of students had a positive attitude toward research [20]. The authors noted that the absence of incentives, limited access to research mentors, and weak institutional infrastructure contributed to this outcome [20].

Taken together, these findings demonstrate that medical students’ attitudes toward research vary widely across countries and contexts. While some studies in both developing (e.g., Brazil, India, Panama) and developed nations (e.g., Saudi Arabia) reported high levels of favorable attitudes, others found more neutral or negative predispositions [6, 11, 12, 14]. The diversity of results suggests that national development status alone does not determine students’ interest in research. Instead, several contextual factors appear to influence attitudes, including curricular exposure to research, availability of mentors, institutional emphasis on scientific training, and personal perceptions of research as a viable career path [16–18, 20].

Although some studies were conducted some years ago, such as those from United States and the Netherlands, their findings remain relevant and help contextualize the challenges faced by students in engaging with research. Evidence from developed countries—such as the United States and the Netherlands—pointed to a disconnect between research and clinical priorities, while investigations in Pakistan and Jordan highlighted barriers related to training and guidance. It is likely that the concerns raised by these earlier studies contributed to increased awareness of the issue and indirectly informed the development of initiatives aimed at improving student engagement in research. These nuances underscore the importance of designing context-specific strategies that address both structural and motivational determinants of research participation.

At this point, it is also important to highlight the top attitude items found in our study. Several studies have reported that medical students’ positive attitudes toward research tend to converge around core elements related to its academic and professional value. In our study, the highest-rated items reflected students’ strong agreement that research should be part of medical training, that it enhances understanding of the world, and that scientific skills are useful for professional development [4, 21]. These priorities are reflected in various contexts. For instance, Memarpour et al. (2015) found that 90.5% of students agreed that research is essential for science and medical advancement, while 87.5% believed it improves patient care [6]. Similarly, in India, 85% of students acknowledged the relevance of research to medical practice, and 83% agreed that research skills enhance clinical decision-making [12]. In Jordan, Abusamak et al. (2024) found that 86.5% of students considered research important for their careers, and over 84% viewed it as a necessary component of the medical curriculum [20]. In addition, in Saudi Arabia, Alduraibi et al. (2024) noted that 87.4% of participants agreed that research improves the quality of healthcare [11]. These findings indicate that medical students across diverse educational systems tend to recognize the importance of scientific inquiry in both academic and clinical settings. Notably, several authors attributed this positive attitude to institutional exposure to research training or curricular integration of research methodology [6, 13, 20].

Collectively, these results suggest that while contextual differences exist, medical students consistently value research when its relevance is clearly emphasized in their education and when opportunities for skill development are accessible [4, 21]. Taken together, these results indicate that undergraduate medical students’ attitudes toward research vary significantly across regions and educational contexts. Favorable attitudes are more prevalent when students receive formal research training, perceive institutional support, or engage with motivating role models [10, 22]. Conversely, attitudes tend to decline in environments where research is perceived as inaccessible, overly complex, or unsupported by faculty [22, 23]. Our findings align with studies that emphasize the positive influence of structured educational programs and academic culture on promoting favorable perceptions [24, 25]. Therefore, the consistently high values observed in our cohort may reflect not only intrinsic motivation but also the influence of a curriculum that explicitly integrates research as a core component of medical education [4, 21].

Another important issue emerging from our findings is the limited impact of the intervention on students’ attitudes and perceived barriers. The educational and motivational strategy implemented in this study did not produce statistically significant changes in either variable. This outcome aligns with previous studies that have reported the limited effectiveness of brief, low-intensity interventions, particularly when structural or contextual challenges persist [15, 26]. Although our intervention was designed to stimulate motivation and enhance engagement with research, its short duration and self-directed delivery format may have restricted its ability to produce measurable changes in behavior or perception.

In this context, Assar et al. (2022) and Chen et al. (2023) reported that educational initiatives lacking interaction and mentorship components tend to have limited outcomes, particularly when applied to students who are already experiencing academic overload [27, 28]. In our study, we achieved only a modest improvement in attitudes after the intervention. These results suggest that while the strategy may have reinforced students’ existing positive views, it did not produce a substantial change in their perceptions of research engagement.

Equally important is the observation that the intervention failed to reduce the perceived barriers to research. Despite receiving motivational content designed to address obstacles such as fear of failure, lack of time, and difficulties with statistical or scientific writing skills, students continued to report high levels of perceived barriers after the intervention. This is consistent with findings from Cushieri et al. (2022) and Alhabib et al. (2023), who observed that perceived research barriers often remain stable in the absence of institutional changes or personalized mentoring [10, 29]. Similarly, Alamry et al. (2021) highlighted the importance of tailoring interventions according to students’ motivational profiles [23]. In our case, the intervention did not distinguish between extrinsically and intrinsically motivated students, which may have diluted its potential effect. Students with intrinsic motivation may require more flexible and exploratory opportunities, while those with extrinsic motivation often respond better to formal incentives or academic recognition.

Overall, these findings suggest that isolated interventions—particularly those delivered passively and without follow-up—are unlikely to produce substantial shifts in students’ engagement with research. To be effective, educational strategies must be more comprehensive, sustained, and aligned with the realities of students’ academic contexts.

Beyond educational and motivational efforts, institutional actions play a crucial role in overcoming the structural and contextual barriers perceived by medical students. The high baseline levels of perceived barriers observed in our study reflect limitations commonly described in the literature, such as academic overload, lack of time, and insufficient mentoring opportunities [4, 21]. These findings are consistent with studies conducted in similar settings, where students often report that institutional constraints significantly limit their ability to engage in research [27–29].

For example, Karabacak et al. (2024) highlighted the importance of institutional commitment to building supportive research environments through initiatives such as journal clubs, structured training programs, and accessible research infrastructure [30]. Kamya et al. (2024) found that protected time, funding opportunities, and well-structured mentoring systems positively influence students’ motivation to participate in research [31]. These findings underscore the need for universities to invest not only in content delivery but also in the research ecosystem that surrounds student engagement.

Moreover, Öcek et al. (2021) demonstrated that integrating structured research training into the curriculum, combined with academic incentives, increased both participation and research output among students [32]. Our results reinforce this point by showing that perceived barriers remained high even after a targeted intervention, highlighting the limitations of strategies that are not embedded within broader institutional frameworks.

In line with this, the results of the study by Pop and Lotrean (2024) suggest that mandatory thesis work, participation in conferences, and publication of student research projects are associated with greater involvement and a more positive perception of research [33]. Similarly, the analysis by Ratte (2028) confirmed that strengthening scientific competencies in early medical training requires systemic support, including policy development, infrastructure, and academic recognition [34].

Eley (2018) offered further evidence of the impact of structured research pathways such as the “Clinician-Scientist Track” in Australia, which allow students to combine clinical training with scientific development [35]. This model has shown promising outcomes in terms of increased research productivity and the promotion of academic career paths. Mahomed et al. (2021) also emphasized the relevance of supportive academic environments and supervisors trained in research education [36]. These examples illustrate that the persistent structural barriers perceived by students are not easily addressed through short-term or isolated interventions. Our findings align with the growing consensus that institutional investment and curricular integration are necessary to transform students’ research engagement into a sustainable practice.

In addition to highlighting the need for longer interventions, this study underscores the importance of fostering an institutional culture that promotes and values research from the undergraduate level. Multiple studies have shown that early engagement in research activities contributes to the development of analytical skills, critical thinking, problem-solving abilities, and a deeper understanding of evidence-based medicine [37, 38]. These competencies are essential not only for clinical practice but also for driving improvements in patient care and innovation within healthcare systems [24, 39].

Structured programs, institutional incentives, and policies that support student research play a crucial role in cultivating future physician-scientists [35, 36]. In Australia, for instance, the Clinician–Scientist Track has shown that formal pathways integrating medical degrees with scientific training can boost research productivity and facilitate transitions into academic careers [35]. Similarly, institutions that implement mandatory thesis requirements, congress participation, and publication goals have reported increased student engagement and the generation of relevant scientific output [33].

The availability of institutional resources has also been directly associated with enhanced motivation and reduced barriers. Recent studies emphasize that access to qualified mentors, project-specific funding, protected research time, and appropriate physical spaces are essential for the success of undergraduate research programs [31, 32]. Universities that invest in these areas have reported improvements not only in the quantity but also in the quality of research outputs developed by their students [30].

The interest in becoming part of the physician-scientist community also depends on recognizing the clinical value of medical research. There are historical examples of significant discoveries led by medical students, such as the identification of the atrioventricular node, the development of ether anesthesia, and the discovery of insulin [33]. These milestones highlight the need to preserve environments that nurture scientific curiosity and allow students to make meaningful contributions to medical knowledge and healthcare delivery [40].

A recurring concern identified in the literature is that while initial interest in research may be high, negative experiences during medical school, lack of support, or academic overload can gradually diminish this enthusiasm [41, 42]. It is therefore critical not only to include research in the curriculum but also to ensure that its implementation is meaningful, continuous, and supported by institutional policies that facilitate and recognize students’ research efforts [43, 44].

Improving student participation in research requires not only motivational interventions but also a transformation of the academic environment. Effective strategies should combine methodological training, practical opportunities for participation, access to scientific publication channels, integration into research networks, and sustained incentive programs supported by universities [34, 35]. These efforts must align with a long-term vision that acknowledges the strategic value of preparing physicians who can generate and apply scientific knowledge from the beginning of their professional education.

Overall, our findings reaffirm the critical need to strengthen institutional, curricular, and motivational frameworks that support early research engagement among medical students. These efforts are essential not only to overcome persistent barriers, but also to cultivate a new generation of physician-scientists capable of advancing evidence-based medical practice and health innovation.

Limitations

This study has several limitations that must be considered when interpreting the findings. First, the absence of a control group limits the ability to attribute observed changes directly to the intervention. Second, the pre- and post-intervention surveys were administered anonymously and without individual pairing, which prevented the analysis of within-subject changes over time and restricted the statistical power of the comparisons. As part of the descriptive analysis, the scale midpoint was used solely to contextualize baseline scores within the full range of the scale, without implying any normative standard or inferential comparison. Likewise, the quartile-based distribution was applied exclusively as a descriptive tool to explore score patterns across defined ranges, not for hypothesis testing or participant classification.

The short duration of the intervention—delivered over a single month—may also have reduced its capacity to generate measurable or sustained changes in students’ attitudes or perceived barriers. Additionally, the intervention was entirely virtual and self-directed, which may have resulted in variability in student engagement and reduced exposure to the material among less motivated participants.

This study was conducted in a single Ecuadorian medical school, which may limit the generalizability of the results to other contexts or educational systems. Moreover, participation in the study was voluntary, which introduces the possibility of selection bias. Students with greater initial interest or awareness of research may have been more likely to complete both surveys, potentially overestimating the prevalence of favorable attitudes.

Several other biases may have influenced the results. For example, social desirability bias may have affected responses to attitudinal items, particularly given the academic context. Although efforts were made to ensure anonymity, the nature of self-reported data can still be subject to response distortion. In addition, measurement bias may be present, given that the instrument was adapted to the local context and may not have captured certain culturally specific nuances.

Lastly, the study did not include a follow-up phase to assess long-term effects of the intervention, which limits conclusions about its lasting impact. Future studies should consider longitudinal designs, inclusion of control groups, and multimodal interventions with active mentoring and institutional support to more fully evaluate the effectiveness of research training programs for medical students.

Conclusions

This study showed that undergraduate medical students exhibited a high level of favorable attitudes toward scientific research even before the intervention, reflecting a solid recognition of its academic and professional relevance. Although the educational and motivational strategy led to a slight increase in the proportion of students with very favorable attitudes, no statistically significant changes were observed in attitudes or perceived barriers after the intervention.

The persistence of high perceived barriers—particularly those related to time constraints, lack of mentorship, and insufficient training—underscores the limitations of short, self-directed interventions to produce substantial changes in research engagement. These findings highlight the structural and institutional nature of the barriers, which are less susceptible to change through brief motivational efforts.

To promote meaningful student involvement in research, it is necessary to implement long-term, structured strategies that include curricular integration, faculty mentoring, dedicated research time, and institutional incentives. Future studies should explore the effectiveness of such multifaceted interventions and evaluate their potential to translate favorable attitudes into sustained research participation among medical students.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Author contributions

BQM: Study conception/design, data analysis/discussion, bibliographic review, manuscript preparation, review of the final version. RMR: Study conception/design, data/information collection, review of the final version. SMP: Study conception/design, data analysis/discussion, review of the final version. EBS: Data/information collection, bibliographic review, manuscript preparation.

Funding

This study was funded by the Universidad Tecnica Particular de Loja. Vicerrectorado de investigación. Project name: “Iniciando el camino a la investigación biomédica” Project code: PROY_PROY_ARTIC_CS_2022_3675.

Data availability

The data from this study belong to the Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja. However, they are available for research upon reasonable request addressed to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Project code: PROY_PROY_ARTIC_CS_2022_3675.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This research was carried out with institutional permission and approval from the Ethics Committee of the of the University of Portoviejo, Ecuador (CEISH ITSUP Code: 1686978859), following which the participants completed the preintervention questionnaire anonymously online. This research was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki principles. The collected information was appropriately managed, strictly respecting the anonymity of the patients and following establishment of appropriate management regulations. The data obtained in this study were used exclusively for the purposes of the research and were not and will not be made available to outsiders.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.