Determinants of pharmacy students’ satisfaction with graduation project supervision in Saudi Arabia

Abstract

Background

Effective supervision is a key determinant of success in undergraduate research, influencing student satisfaction, academic performance, and research outcomes. However, there is limited evidence on pharmacy students’ perceptions of graduation project supervision in Saudi Arabia. This study aimed to explore students’ perceptions of supervisory roles, identify factors influencing supervisor selection, and determine predictors of satisfaction.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was conducted among undergraduate pharmacy students, interns, and recent graduates (≤ 5 years) across Saudi Arabia using a validated, Arabic-translated questionnaire. Data were collected via an online platform using convenience and snowball sampling. Descriptive statistics summarized participant characteristics and responses. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of satisfaction, with results reported as adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

A total of 384 participants were included. Overall, 64.5% reported high satisfaction with their supervisors. Students demonstrated strong expectations of active supervisory involvement, particularly in reviewing drafts (88.3%), providing procedural guidance (85.9%), and ensuring access to resources (84.9%). Supervisor selection was primarily influenced by availability and willingness to supervise (66.9%), alignment of research interests (64.3%), and methodological expertise (64.3%), while demographic factors were minimally influential. Key predictors of satisfaction included meeting frequency, with monthly (AOR = 0.316, p < 0.001) and less frequent meetings (AOR = 0.227, p < 0.001) associated with lower satisfaction compared to weekly meetings. Working in pairs increased satisfaction (AOR = 3.751, p = 0.008), while lack of conference participation reduced satisfaction (AOR = 0.435, p = 0.004). Graduates were less likely to report satisfaction than current students, including those who graduated one year prior (AOR = 0.547, p = 0.048) and ≥ 2 years earlier (AOR = 0.410, p = 0.012). Students undertaking projects in pharmaceutical chemistry were more likely to report satisfaction compared with those in pharmaceutics (AOR = 3.284, p = 0.038).

Conclusions

Student satisfaction with graduation project supervision is strongly influenced by supervisory engagement, accessibility, and the quality of mentorship. Despite generally positive experiences, gaps remain in research dissemination and individualized mentorship. Strengthening structured supervision frameworks, enhancing supervisor training, and integrating dissemination into undergraduate research may improve both student experiences and research outcomes.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-10016-0.

Background

The final year graduation project is a mandatory requirement in undergraduate pharmacy programs across Saudi Arabia and is essential for obtaining a bachelor’s degree. These projects are designed to enhance students’ engagement in research and to develop their understanding of scientific inquiry in healthcare [1]. Through this experience, students gain practical research skills, which may encourage them to pursue further education and training beyond the undergraduate level. In addition, participation in research enhances students’ ability to critically evaluate biomedical literature and apply evidence-based medicine in clinical practice, ultimately contributing to improved patient outcomes [1, 2]. The course also promotes important competencies such as problem-solving and self-directed learning, which are often not fully developed through traditional curricula [1, 2].

The graduation project course has been implemented in undergraduate pharmacy programs across Saudi Arabia for several years. To graduate, students are typically required to complete and present a research project on an approved topic and achieve a minimum passing grade. While specific structures may vary slightly between institutions, most pharmacy programs include both theoretical training in research methodology and a practical component involving supervised research projects. The theoretical component generally includes lectures on research methodology and biostatistics, while the practical component involves conducting an independent research project under a faculty member’s supervision. This process typically includes key steps such as developing a research question, conducting a systematic literature review, designing the study methodology, collecting and analyzing data, and presenting the findings.

Typically, students work in groups of two to three under the supervision of one academic staff member. Students may choose their supervisors from various pharmacy-related disciplines, including pharmacy practice, pharmaceutics, pharmacology, pharmaceutical chemistry, and pharmacognosy. Supervisor allocation followed a structured preference-based process. Students were asked to rank three preferred supervisors in order of preference (first, second, and third choice). In the initial allocation round, each supervisor received a list of students who had selected them as their first-choice supervisor and selected students for supervision according to their available capacity and preferences. Students who were not assigned to their first-choice supervisor proceeded to a second allocation round, during which they were considered by their second-choice supervisor. If students remained unassigned, the process was repeated with their third-choice supervisor. This iterative allocation process continued until all students were assigned to a supervisor. However, this system may lead to an unequal distribution of students among faculty members, with some supervisors overloaded while others supervise few or no students. Such an imbalance can negatively affect the quality of supervision provided.

Inadequate supervision has been associated with several negative consequences, including lower research quality and fewer publications [3], delays in project completion [4, 5], early termination of research projects [6], and increased stress and dissatisfaction among students [7]. These challenges may ultimately affect students’ ability to successfully complete their projects. In contrast, effective supervision—characterized by appropriate guidance, support, and communication—has been shown to improve student satisfaction, academic performance, and persistence, while also reducing the likelihood of dropout during the early stages of research [3–9].

The graduation project may also influence students’ future career opportunities. For instance, pursuing postgraduate education or residency programs often requires prior research experience or publications. Therefore, the quality of supervision plays a critical role not only in students’ academic success but also in shaping their professional development. Understanding students’ experiences and perceptions of supervision is essential for improving research training and outcomes.

Understanding these perceptions is essential for informing curriculum design, optimizing supervisor allocation, and improving the quality of undergraduate research training. To date, there is limited evidence on undergraduate pharmacy students’ perceptions of graduation project supervision, particularly in the Saudi context. Gaining insight into students’ preferences when selecting supervisors, their expectations of supervisory roles, and their level of satisfaction with supervision can help identify areas for improvement. Such understanding may support the development of better supervision practices, enhance research outcomes, and reduce student dissatisfaction and frustration. Ultimately, the findings of this study can inform supervisors, academic institutions, and policymakers in designing more effective strategies to support undergraduate research and strengthen pharmacy education in Saudi Arabia.

Aim

This study aims to explore undergraduate pharmacy students’ perceptions of graduation project supervision and identify factors that may inform improvements in supervision practices.

Objectives

1. To examine students’ perceptions of the supervisors’ roles and responsibilities in the graduation project;

2. To identify factors influencing students’ selection of graduation project supervisors;

3. To assess students’ level of satisfaction with graduation project supervision;

4. To evaluate the association between participants’ characteristics and their perceptions of supervision.

Materials and methods

Study design, setting, and participants

A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted using an online survey. A non-probability sampling approach was employed, combining convenience and snowball sampling techniques to recruit participants across Saudi Arabia. Eligible participants included: (1) current fifth-year undergraduate pharmacy students or interns, (2) pharmacy graduates within the past five years.

The survey was administered electronically using QuestionPro. To enhance recruitment and response rates, a multi-channel distribution strategy was implemented. First, pharmacy student clubs at various universities were contacted and asked to share the survey link with eligible students. Second, the research team distributed the survey directly to fifth-year students and interns and encouraged them to share it with their peers. Third, the survey was circulated via social media platforms (e.g., X [formerly Twitter] and WhatsApp) targeting current and former pharmacy students. This approach was adopted to ensure wider geographic coverage, given the large number of pharmacy colleges and students in Saudi Arabia.

Study instrument

The survey instrument was adapted from a previously validated questionnaire [10] and modified to align with the objectives of this study. The questionnaire is provided as Supplementary File 1. The final instrument consisted of three main sections. Section A collected demographic and academic characteristics, including project-related information. Section B assessed students’ perceptions of supervisors’ roles and responsibilities using a 3-point Likert scale. Section C explored students’ supervision experiences, factors influencing the selection of research supervisors, perceived quality of supervision across multiple domains, overall satisfaction with supervision, and willingness to recommend the supervisor.

For linguistic validation, the questionnaire was translated from English into Arabic using a parallel blind translation approach [11]. Two bilingual researchers independently translated the questionnaire, and discrepancies between the versions were resolved through discussion to produce a harmonized version. The finalized translation was reviewed by an Arabic-speaking pharmacist to ensure linguistic accuracy and conceptual equivalence. The Arabic version was then pilot-tested with five native Arabic-speaking individuals from the target population to evaluate clarity, comprehension, and cultural relevance prior to final distribution.

Sample size

The required sample size was calculated using Raosoft’s online sample size calculator [12], assuming a 50% response rate, a 95% confidence level, and a 5% margin of error. Based on an estimated population of 18,377 eligible individuals [13], the minimum required sample size was 385 participants.

Data management and analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS version 29 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize participant characteristics and survey responses. Categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of overall satisfaction with the supervisor. For regression analysis, satisfaction was dichotomized into satisfied (satisfied/very satisfied) and non-satisfied (neutral/dissatisfied/very dissatisfied). Neutral responses were grouped with non-satisfied responses to create a binary outcome suitable for logistic regression and to ensure adequate numbers within each outcome category. All relevant participant characteristics and project-related variables were included in the model based on theoretical relevance and previous literature. Results were reported as adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Participant and graduation project characteristics

A total of 384 participants were included, the majority of whom were female (n = 301, 78.4%). Most participants reported high academic performance, with 146 (38.0%) having a GPA of 4.51–5.00 and 137 (35.7%) having a GPA of 4.01–4.50. The sample primarily consisted of current students (n = 235, 61.2%), followed by those who graduated one year prior (n = 91, 23.7%). Pharmacy Practice was the most common project discipline (n = 179, 46.6%), and participants were mainly from the Eastern Province (n = 160, 41.7%). The majority graduated from public universities (n = 357, 93.0%).

Regarding project structure, most students worked in groups of three or more (n = 149, 38.8%), and were typically supervised by one co-supervisor (n = 230, 59.9%). Half of the participants reported meeting their supervisors weekly (n = 194, 50.5%). In terms of research outcomes, only 114 participants (29.7%) reported having a publication, and 116 (30.2%) had presented at a scientific conference, indicating relatively limited research dissemination. Detailed characteristics of participants and graduation projects are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Participant and graduation project characteristics (N = 384)

Parameter		N (%)
Gender	Male	83 (21.6%)
	Female	301 (78.4%)
Grade Point Average (GPA)	2.20–2.50	4 (1.0%)
	2.51-3.00	10 (2.6%)
	3.01–3.50	24 (6.3%)
	3.51-4.00	63 (16.4%)
	4.01–4.50	137 (35.7%)
	4.51-5.00	146 (38.0%)
Graduation status	Current student	235 (61.2%)
	One year prior	91 (23.7%)
	Two years prior	26 (6.8%)
	≥ 3 years prior	32 (8.3%)
Project discipline	Pharmacy Practice	179 (46.6%)
	Pharmacology	76 (19.8%)
	Pharmaceutics	56 (14.6%)
	Pharmaceutical chemistry	49 (12.8%)
	Pharmacognosy	24 (6.3%)
Region	Eastern	160 (41.7%)
	Central	90 (23.4%)
	Western	71 (18.5%)
	Northern	34 (8.9%)
	Southern	29 (7.6%)
University type	Public	357 (93.0%)
	Private	27 (7.0%)
Group size	Individual project (no group members)	31 (8.1%)
	Two-student group	108 (28.1%)
	Three-student group	96 (25.0%)
	Four or more students	149 (38.8%)
Co-supervisors	None	12 (3.1%)
	One	230 (59.9%)
	Two	118 (30.7%)
	≥ 3	24 (6.3%)
Meeting frequency	Weekly	194 (50.5%)
	Every 2 weeks	89 (23.2%)
	Monthly	60 (15.6%)
	≥ 2 months	41 (10.7%)
Publications	Yes	114 (29.7%)
	No	270 (70.3%)
Conference participation	Yes	116 (30.2%)
	No	268 (69.8%)

Perceptions of supervisors’ roles and responsibilities

Participants’ perceptions of supervisors’ roles and responsibilities are presented in Table 2. Overall, students demonstrated a strong expectation that supervisors play an active and central role in guiding the research process. High levels of agreement were observed for several supervisory responsibilities. The majority of participants agreed that supervisors are responsible for providing access to relevant facilities (n = 326, 84.9%), providing necessary procedural and policy-related information (n = 330, 85.9%), and reviewing drafts to ensure students remain on track (n = 339, 88.3%). Similarly, a large proportion agreed that supervisors should provide emotional support and encouragement (n = 312, 81.3%).

Table 2.

Students’ perceptions of supervisors’ roles and responsibilities (N = 384)

Supervisory role	Agree n (%)	Neutral n (%)	Disagree/Don’t know n (%)
Selecting a research topic	124 (32.3)	172 (44.8)	88 (22.9)
Deciding methodology	277 (72.1)	84 (21.9)	23 (6.0)
Developing a research plan/timeline	277 (72.1)	79 (20.6)	28 (7.3)
Ensuring access to facilities/resources	326 (84.9)	47 (12.2)	11 (2.9)
Providing policies/procedural information	330 (85.9)	43 (11.2)	11 (2.9)
Maintaining regular meetings	194 (50.5)	122 (31.8)	68 (17.7)
Coordinating communication	193 (50.3)	110 (28.6)	81 (21.1)
Monitoring student progress	271 (70.6)	70 (18.2)	43 (11.2)
Ensuring timely completion	278 (72.4)	63 (16.4)	43 (11.2)
Reviewing drafts	339 (88.3)	29 (7.6)	16 (4.1)
Assisting with writing/editing	251 (65.4)	97 (25.3)	36 (9.4)
Providing emotional support	312 (81.3)	51 (13.3)	21 (5.4)

Participants also strongly endorsed supervisors’ involvement in research planning and oversight. Approximately 72.1% (n = 277) agreed that supervisors should determine appropriate methodologies and develop research plans and timelines, while 72.4% (n = 278) agreed that supervisors are responsible for ensuring timely project completion. Additionally, 70.6% (n = 271) agreed that supervisors should monitor students’ progress regularly.

In contrast, perceptions were more divided regarding certain roles. Only 32.3% (n = 124) agreed that selecting the research topic is the supervisor’s responsibility, with a larger proportion indicating neutrality (44.8%) or disagreement (22.4%), suggesting a preference for shared or student-led decision-making in this aspect. Moderate agreement was observed for responsibilities related to maintaining regular meetings (n = 194, 50.5%) and coordinating communication within the supervisory team (n = 193, 50.3%), indicating variability in expectations for these roles. Similarly, 65.4% (n = 251) agreed that supervisors should assist with writing and editing, reflecting some diversity in perceptions of the boundaries of academic support.

Factors influencing the choice of research supervisor

Participants reported multiple factors influencing their selection of a research supervisor (Table 3). Overall, the findings indicate that students prioritize academic competence, accessibility, and a supportive supervisory style, while demographic and personal characteristics were largely unimportant.

Table 3.

Factors influencing students’ choice of research supervisor

Factor	N (%)*
Academic factors
Willingness to supervise	257 (66.9)
Matching research interests	247 (64.3)
Knowledge of methods/techniques	247 (64.3)
Reputation as a good supervisor	217 (56.5)
Ensures rigorous project	207 (53.9)
Interesting research/project offered	176 (45.8)
Good publication record	145 (37.8)
Good teaching reputation	145 (37.8)
Reputation as a good researcher	141 (36.7)
Years of experience	129 (33.6)
Timely completion reputation	123 (32.0)
Grant record	103 (26.8)
High academic rank/qualification	81 (21.1)
Interpersonal factors
Friendly/approachable interaction	217 (56.5)
Availability and accessibility	193 (50.3)
Flexible and open to ideas	153 (39.8)
Encourages a good research environment	152 (39.6)
Professional/Career factors
Recommended by others	193 (50.3)
Good reference letter (career support)	184 (47.9)
Helps obtain a suitable job	156 (40.6)
Helps complete the project efficiently	142 (37.0)
Administrative position	64 (16.7)
Personal/Demographic factors
Proficient in Arabic	122 (31.8)
Same gender	24 (6.3)
Nationality	17 (4.4)
Age	16 (4.2)
Religion	8 (2.1)
Marital status	6 (1.6)
Profile/personal appearance	6 (1.6)

*Note: Percentages may exceed 100% because participants were allowed to select multiple responses

Among the most frequently reported reasons were supervisors’ availability and willingness to supervise (n = 257, 66.9%), alignment of research interests (n = 247, 64.3%), and an approachable, supportive interaction style (n = 217, 56.5%). Additionally, over half of participants selected factors related to ensuring a rigorous project (n = 207, 53.9%) and accessibility to guidance (n = 193, 50.3%), highlighting the importance of active engagement and the quality of mentorship. Academic reputation also played a substantial role. Approximately 56.5% (n = 217) of participants selected supervisors based on their reputation as good supervisors, while 64.3% (n = 247) considered research expertise and methodological knowledge important. Furthermore, 65.4% (n = 251) valued supervisors’ ability to support writing and research output, and 50.3% (n = 193) reported that recommendation by others influenced their decision.

Career-related motivations were moderately influential. Around 40–48% of participants selected factors such as obtaining a good reference letter (n = 184, 47.9%) and future job opportunities (n = 156, 40.6%), suggesting that supervisors’ role in career advancement is relevant but not dominant.

In contrast, structural and prestige-related factors were less influential. Only a minority selected grant record (n = 103, 26.8%), administrative position (n = 64, 16.7%), or high academic rank (n = 81, 21.1%) as reasons for selection. Notably, personal and demographic characteristics were the least influential factors. Very few participants selected gender (n = 24, 6.3%), age (n = 16, 4.2%), nationality (n = 17, 4.4%), religion (n = 8, 2.1%), or marital status (n = 6, 1.6%) as reasons for choosing a supervisor, indicating that students’ decisions are largely driven by professional rather than personal considerations.

Students’ supervision experience

Participants’ perceptions of their supervision experience are summarized in Table 4. Overall, the findings indicate generally positive supervision experiences, particularly in interpersonal support, research guidance, and ethical conduct. High levels of agreement were observed for several key aspects of supervision. The majority of participants agreed that their supervisors were friendly and approachable (n = 306, 79.7%), and promoted ethical conduct of research (n = 299, 77.9%). Similarly, strong agreement was reported for supervisors providing relevant information (n = 274, 71.4%), contributing significantly to the project (n = 270, 70.3%), and being available and dedicating adequate time (n = 268, 69.8%). Supervisors were also perceived as effective in supporting research development. Approximately 65.9% (n = 253) of participants agreed that their supervisors helped develop research skills, while 60.7% (n = 233) reported improvement in critical thinking. In addition, 68.8% (n = 264) agreed that supervisors provided constructive and helpful feedback, and 69.5% (n = 267) indicated that supervisors gave clear directions throughout the project.

Table 4.

Students’ perceptions of supervision experience (N = 384)

Statement	Agree n (%)	Neutral n (%)	Disagree n (%)	Don’t know n (%)
The supervisor is friendly and approachable	306 (79.7)	53 (13.8)	19 (4.9)	6 (1.6)
Try to understand difficulties	236 (61.5)	86 (22.4)	51 (13.3)	11 (2.9)
Provides relevant information	274 (71.4)	59 (15.4)	46 (12.0)	5 (1.3)
Help develop research skills	253 (65.9)	65 (16.9)	55 (14.3)	11 (2.9)
Enhance critical thinking skills	233 (60.7)	89 (23.2)	53 (13.8)	9 (2.3)
Has adequate expertise	259 (67.4)	79 (20.6)	36 (9.4)	10 (2.6)
Provides constructive feedback	264 (68.8)	64 (16.7)	44 (11.5)	12 (3.1)
Contributed significantly to the project	270 (70.3)	59 (15.4)	43 (11.2)	12 (3.1)
Available and dedicated time	268 (69.8)	59 (15.4)	48 (12.5)	9 (2.3)
Encourages conference participation	193 (50.3)	77 (20.1)	82 (21.4)	32 (8.3)
Encourages publication	206 (53.6)	59 (15.4)	84 (21.9)	35 (9.1)
Considers students’ goals	161 (41.9)	117 (30.5)	73 (19.0)	33 (8.6)
Motivates and inspires students	233 (60.7)	81 (21.1)	53 (13.8)	17 (4.4)
Provides clear directions	267 (69.5)	60 (15.6)	42 (10.9)	15 (3.9)
Promotes ethical conduct	299 (77.9)	55 (14.3)	19 (4.9)	11 (2.9)

Moderate levels of agreement were observed in areas related to motivation and personal support. Around 61.5% (n = 236) agreed that supervisors made efforts to understand student difficulties, and 60.7% (n = 233) reported that supervisors were motivating and inspiring.

In contrast, relatively lower agreement was observed for career development and student-centered support. Only 50.3% (n = 193) agreed that supervisors encouraged participation in conferences, and 53.6% (n = 206) reported encouragement to publish research findings. Notably, only 41.9% (n = 161) agreed that supervisors prioritized students’ personal goals over publication outcomes, indicating potential gaps in individualized mentorship.

Overall satisfaction and willingness to recommend the supervisor

Satisfaction levels were generally high. Responses were measured on a five-point Likert scale, where 1 = very dissatisfied, 2 = dissatisfied, 3 = neutral, 4 = satisfied, and 5 = very satisfied. Overall, 248 participants (64.5%) reported high satisfaction levels (ratings of 4 or 5), including 153 (39.8%) who were very satisfied (rating of 5) and 95 (24.7%) who were satisfied (rating of 4). Moderate satisfaction (neutral rating of 3) was reported by 79 participants (20.6%). Lower satisfaction levels were less common, with 57 participants (14.8%) reporting dissatisfaction: 37 (9.6%) dissatisfied (rating of 2) and 20 (5.2%) very dissatisfied (rating of 1).

Predictors of student satisfaction with graduation project supervision

Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified several factors independently associated with student satisfaction with their graduation project supervisor (Table 5). For the purpose of regression analysis, overall satisfaction was dichotomized: participants reporting ratings of 4 or 5 were classified as very satisfied/satisfied (n = 248, 64.6%), and those reporting ratings of 1, 2, or 3 as very dissatisfied/dissatisfied/neutral (n = 136, 35.4%). The logistic regression model demonstrated acceptable fit and was statistically significant (Omnibus χ² = 72.717, p < 0.001). The model explained 17.3% to 23.7% of the variance in satisfaction (Cox & Snell R² = 0.173; Nagelkerke R² = 0.237), showed good calibration (Hosmer–Lemeshow χ² = 10.275, p = 0.246), and correctly classified 71.6% of cases.

Table 5.

Multivariate logistic regression analysis of factors associated with student satisfaction with their graduation project supervisor

Variable		Very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied/ neutral n(%)	Very satisfied/ satisfied n(%)	AOR	95% CI	P-value
Gender	Male	25 (18.4%)	58 (23.4%)	1.00a
	Female	111 (81.6%)	190 (76.6%)	0.729	0.388–1.370	0.326
GPA	4.51–5.00	52 (38.2%)	94 (37.9%)	1.00a
	4.01–4.50	42 (30.9%)	95 (38.3%)	1.219	0.674–2.202	0.512
	≤ 4.00	42 (30.9%)	59 (23.8%)	0.869	0.469–1.610	0.655
Graduation year	Current student	72 (52.9%)	163 (65.7%)	1.00a
	One year prior	38 (27.9%)	53 (21.4%)	0.547	0.301–0.994	0.048
	≥ 2 years prior	26 (19.1%)	32 (12.9%)	0.410	0.204–0.823	0.012
Graduation project field	Pharmaceutics	21 (15.4%)	35 (14.1%)	1.00a
	Pharmaceutical Chemistry	6 (4.4%)	43 (17.3%)	3.284	1.067–10.105	0.038
	Pharmacology	29 (21.3%)	47 (19.0%)	1.165	0.511–2.660	0.716
	Pharmacognosy	9 (6.6%)	15 (6.0%)	0.761	0.251–2.308	0.629
	Pharmacy Practice	71 (52.2%)	108 (43.5%)	1.097	0.532–2.260	0.802
Region	Eastern	48 (35.3%)	112 (45.2%)	1.00a
	Other	88 (64.7%)	136 (55%)	0.903	0.536–1.523	0.702
Type of university	Public	123 (90.4%)	234 (94.4%)	1.00a
	Private	13 (9.6%)	14 (5.6%)	0.515	0.206–1.286	0.155
Group size	Individual project (no group members)	16 (11.8%)	15 (6.0%)	1.00a
	Two-student group	27 (19.9%)	81 (32.7%)	3.751	1.420–9.910	0.008
	Three-student group	35 (25.7%)	61 (24.6%)	2.290	0.888–5.907	0.087
	≥ 4 students	58 (42.6%)	91 (36.7%)	2.139	0.882–5.190	0.093
Number of co-supervisors	One	85 (62.5%)	145 (58.5%)	1.00a
	Two	38 (27.9%)	80 (32.3%)	1.059	0.619–1.811	0.835
	≥ 3	10 (7.4%)	14 (5.6%)	0.544	0.203–1.462	0.228
	None	3 (2.2.%)	9 (3.6%)	2.203	0.496–9.784	0.299
Meeting frequency	Once/week	51 (37.5%)	143 (57.7%)	1.00a
	Every two weeks	31 (22.8%)	58 (23.4%)	0.622	0.343–1.129	0.118
	Once/month	29 (21.3%)	31 (12.5%)	0.316	0.161–0.620	< 0.001
	≥ 2 months	25 (18.4%)	16 (6.5%)	0.227	0.102–0.504	< 0.001
Publication from the project	Yes	33 (24.3%)	81 (32.7%)	1.00a
	No	103 (75.5%)	167 (67.3%)	0.624	0.357–1.091	0.098
Conference participation	Yes	28 (20.6%)	88 (35.5%)	1.00a
	No	108 (79.4%)	160 (64.5%)	0.435	0.246–0.767	0.004

Note: AOR Adjusted odds ratio, a Reference category for the logistic regressions, CI Confidence interval, P Probability value

Graduation status was a significant predictor, with participants who had graduated one year prior (AOR = 0.547, 95% CI: 0.301–0.994, p = 0.048) and those who graduated two or more years earlier (AOR = 0.410, 95% CI: 0.204–0.823, p = 0.012) demonstrating significantly lower odds of reporting satisfaction compared with current students. The discipline of the graduation project was also significantly associated with satisfaction. Students undertaking projects in pharmaceutical chemistry were more likely to report satisfaction compared with those in pharmaceutics (AOR = 3.284, 95% CI: 1.067–10.105, p = 0.038).

Project group size had a significant effect, with students working in pairs (one additional student) having higher odds of satisfaction than those working alone (AOR = 3.751, 95% CI: 1.420–9.910, p = 0.008). Supervisor meeting frequency emerged as a strong predictor of satisfaction. Students who met their supervisors less frequently—once per month (AOR = 0.316, 95% CI: 0.161–0.620, p < 0.001) or once every two months or more (AOR = 0.227, 95% CI: 0.102–0.504, p < 0.001)—had significantly lower odds of satisfaction compared with those who met weekly. Finally, students who did not participate in a scientific conference were significantly less likely to report satisfaction compared with those who did (AOR = 0.435, 95% CI: 0.246–0.767, p = 0.004).

No significant associations were observed for gender, GPA, region, type of university, number of co-supervisors, or publication status (p > 0.05 for all).

Discussion

This study provides comprehensive insights into undergraduate pharmacy students’ perceptions of graduation project supervision in Saudi Arabia, highlighting key determinants of satisfaction, supervisor selection, and the quality of supervision. Overall, the findings indicate that although students reported generally high levels of satisfaction, important gaps remain in individualized mentorship, research dissemination, and structured supervisory engagement. These findings contribute to the growing body of literature emphasizing the critical role of the quality of supervision in shaping research training outcomes in health professions education.

The present study demonstrated that approximately two-thirds of participants (64.5%) reported high satisfaction with their supervisors, suggesting that supervision practices are broadly effective within the Saudi pharmacy education context. This aligns with previous international studies in pharmacy education, which have reported moderate-to-high satisfaction with research supervision when supervisors provide clear guidance, timely feedback, and supportive interactions [1, 2]. However, the remaining proportion of students reporting neutral or negative experiences highlights variability in the quality of supervision, a finding consistent with international evidence indicating that supervisory practices often lack standardization across institutions [14].

A central finding of this study is the critical role of supervisor accessibility and engagement, particularly the strong association between meeting frequency and satisfaction. Students who met their supervisors less frequently had significantly lower odds of satisfaction, emphasizing that regular interaction is a cornerstone of effective supervision. This finding is consistent with the broader literature, where frequent supervisory meetings have been linked to improved research progress, reduced student anxiety, and higher completion rates [9, 15]. Moreover, structured and predictable supervisory contact has been shown to enhance students’ sense of belonging and academic self-efficacy, which are critical for successful research engagement [16].

The present findings are also consistent with internationally recognized supervision frameworks. Lee’s model of research supervision proposes that effective supervision extends beyond technical guidance and encompasses functional, enculturation, critical thinking, emancipation, and relationship-development dimensions of mentorship [19]. Similarly, Wisker emphasizes that high-quality supervision requires a balance between academic guidance, emotional support, and the promotion of student independence [20]. The strong association observed between meeting frequency and student satisfaction in the present study supports these frameworks, suggesting that students benefit not only from technical research guidance but also from regular interaction, constructive feedback, and ongoing mentorship. Furthermore, the importance of supervisor accessibility identified in this study is consistent with evidence from doctoral and undergraduate research settings internationally, where frequent communication and supportive supervisory relationships have been associated with improved research outcomes, reduced stress, and greater student satisfaction [15, 16]. These findings suggest that pharmacy programs may benefit from adopting structured supervision frameworks that clearly define expectations regarding communication, feedback, and supervisory responsibilities.

Another important observation is the decline in satisfaction among graduates compared with current students. This may reflect retrospective evaluation bias or unmet expectations that become more apparent after graduation. Similar trends have been reported in the higher education literature, where alumni tend to evaluate supervisory experiences more critically after exposure to real-world research or professional environments [14, 16]. This finding suggests that immediate satisfaction during the course may not fully capture the long-term effectiveness of supervision.

The study also highlights the importance of project structure, with students working in pairs demonstrating higher satisfaction than those working alone. Collaborative learning environments likely facilitate peer support, shared responsibility, and enhanced problem-solving, which have been shown to improve research experiences and academic outcomes [17, 18]. In addition, peer collaboration may mitigate the negative impact of limited supervisor availability by serving as an informal support mechanism.

Interestingly, disciplinary differences were observed, with students in pharmaceutical chemistry reporting higher satisfaction than those in pharmaceutics. This may reflect variations in supervision models, research infrastructure, or faculty workload across disciplines. Previous studies have shown that disciplinary culture significantly influences supervision styles, expectations, and student–supervisor interactions [19, 20]. This finding underscores the need for discipline-specific approaches to supervision rather than a one-size-fits-all model.

An additional important finding is the significant association between research dissemination activities—particularly conference participation—and student satisfaction, as students who did not present at conferences were significantly less likely to report satisfaction. This suggests that engagement in scholarly dissemination is not merely an outcome of the quality of supervision but also a contributor to students’ overall research experience. Participation in conferences may enhance students’ sense of achievement, professional identity, and academic confidence, thereby reinforcing positive perceptions of supervision. This is supported by previous research indicating that involvement in research dissemination activities is associated with higher academic motivation, improved research skills, and increased likelihood of pursuing postgraduate training [21–23].

The relatively low rates of publication (29.7%) and conference participation (30.2%) observed in this study highlight a missed opportunity to maximize the academic impact of undergraduate research. Several factors may contribute to the relatively low levels of research dissemination observed in this study. Although these factors were not directly examined, previous studies conducted in Saudi Arabia have identified multiple barriers to research participation and publication among health professions students [24–26]. Commonly reported barriers include insufficient mentorship and supervisory support, limited time due to academic workload, inadequate research training, and a lack of institutional support for research activities [24–26]. In a national study of Saudi medical students, lack of time, inadequate mentorship, and limited research opportunities were identified as major barriers to research participation [25]. Similarly, a recent study conducted in Makkah, Saudi Arabia, reported that inadequate academic guidance, lack of active research groups, and competing academic responsibilities were among the most important barriers to research publication among undergraduate students [24]. These challenges may also contribute to the relatively low publication and conference participation rates observed in the present study. Addressing such barriers may require structured mentorship programs, scientific writing workshops, dedicated support for manuscript preparation, and financial and institutional support for conference participation. Future qualitative studies involving both students and supervisors are warranted to explore these barriers in greater depth and identify targeted interventions to enhance undergraduate research dissemination.

An additional key finding concerns the factors influencing students’ choice of research supervisor, further highlighting the central role of mentorship quality in shaping the research experience. Students predominantly selected supervisors based on availability and willingness to supervise, alignment of research interests, and methodological expertise, indicating a strong preference for supervisors who are both accessible and academically supportive. Interpersonal attributes, such as being approachable and supportive, were also highly valued, reinforcing the importance of the relational dimension of supervision. These findings are consistent with previous research demonstrating that students prioritize supervisors who provide guidance, communicate effectively, and foster a positive working relationship [10, 14].

In contrast, traditional markers of academic prestige—such as rank, administrative position, or grant record—were less influential in supervisor selection. This suggests that students adopt a pragmatic, experience-driven approach, focusing on factors that directly affect their day-to-day research experience rather than on symbolic indicators of academic status. Notably, demographic characteristics, including gender and nationality, were among the least influential factors, reflecting a merit-based and professionally oriented decision-making process.

Career-related considerations, such as obtaining strong reference letters or future job opportunities, were moderately influential, indicating that while students recognize the role of supervisors in career advancement, immediate research support and engagement remain the primary priorities. These findings underscore the importance of ensuring that all supervisors—not only highly reputed faculty — are equipped with the skills and capacity to provide effective mentorship. From an institutional perspective, these results support the need for transparent information about supervisors’ availability, supervision style, and research areas, which may help students make more informed choices and optimize supervisor–student matching.

Building on these findings, an important contribution of this study is the insight it provides into students’ expectations regarding supervisors’ roles and responsibilities. The findings indicate a clear preference for active, structured supervisory involvement, particularly in reviewing drafts (88.3%), providing procedural guidance (85.9%), ensuring access to resources (84.9%), and offering emotional support (81.3%). These results suggest that students perceive supervisors not only as academic advisors but also as facilitators, mentors, and support systems throughout the research process. This aligns with contemporary models of supervision that conceptualize the supervisor’s role as multidimensional, encompassing academic, managerial, and psychosocial functions [19, 20].

At the same time, the findings suggest that responsibility is shared between students and supervisors, particularly regarding selecting the research topic, with only 32.3% of students considering this primarily the supervisor’s responsibility, and the majority indicating neutrality or disagreement. This suggests that students value autonomy and ownership of their research projects, consistent with student-centered learning approaches and self-directed learning principles widely advocated in health professions education [23]. Balancing guidance with autonomy is a critical aspect of effective supervision, as excessive control may hinder independent thinking, while insufficient support may lead to uncertainty and reduced performance. These findings underscore the importance of establishing clear, mutually agreed expectations between students and supervisors at the outset of the research process. Formalizing these roles through supervision agreements or structured guidelines may help reduce misunderstandings, improve communication, and enhance the overall supervision experience.

Implications for practice and policy

The findings of this study have several important implications for pharmacy education and research training. First, the strong association between supervisory engagement, particularly meeting frequency, and student satisfaction highlights the need for institutions to implement structured supervision frameworks. Such frameworks should clearly define expectations regarding meeting frequency, communication channels, feedback timelines, and the respective responsibilities of students and supervisors. International supervision models emphasize that clearly articulated expectations can reduce misunderstandings, improve communication, and enhance both student satisfaction and research outcomes [19, 20]. At an institutional level, supervision guidelines and standardized supervision agreements could be incorporated into graduation project policies to ensure consistency in supervisory practices across departments and disciplines.

Second, the findings emphasize the importance of supervisor training and professional development. Given that students valued accessibility, guidance, and interpersonal support more than traditional indicators of academic prestige, institutions should consider implementing formal supervisor development programs that focus on mentorship skills, effective communication, constructive feedback, expectation management, and student-centered supervision. Such programs may help supervisors develop competencies that are not always addressed through traditional academic training and could contribute to more positive supervisory experiences and improved research outcomes.

Third, the findings related to supervisor selection support the development of transparent supervisor allocation processes. Rather than relying solely on student preferences or informal selection practices, institutions may benefit from providing students with standardized information regarding supervisors’ research interests, areas of expertise, supervisory capacity, and expectations. This may facilitate better supervisor–student matching and reduce imbalances in supervisory workload, thereby promoting a more equitable distribution of students among faculty members.

Finally, these findings have broader implications for pharmacy education policy within Saudi Arabia. As undergraduate research forms an important component of PharmD training and contributes to the development of research literacy, critical thinking, and evidence-based practice skills, national and institutional stakeholders should consider incorporating quality indicators for research supervision into program evaluation and accreditation processes. Establishing minimum standards for supervision, mentorship, and research dissemination may help ensure more consistent and high-quality research experiences for pharmacy students across institutions.

Strengths and limitations

This study has several strengths. It represents one of the first multi-regional investigations in Saudi Arabia exploring undergraduate pharmacy students’ perceptions of research supervision, providing valuable context-specific insights. The relatively large sample size and inclusion of both current students and recent graduates enhance the breadth and relevance of the findings. In addition, multivariate logistic regression analysis enabled the identification of independent predictors of student satisfaction, thereby strengthening the study’s analytical rigor.

However, several limitations should be considered. First, the cross-sectional design limits the ability to establish causal relationships between supervision characteristics and student satisfaction. Second, the use of convenience and snowball sampling may introduce selection bias, potentially affecting the generalizability of the findings. Third, data were based on self-reported perceptions, which may be influenced by recall bias or social desirability bias. Fourth, the study included both current students and recent graduates. Consequently, some current students may not yet have completed all stages of research dissemination, such as manuscript submission or conference presentation. Therefore, associations involving publication and conference participation should be interpreted with caution, as these opportunities may continue to develop after completion of the graduation project. Fifth, an additional limitation relates to the categorization of the satisfaction outcome in the regression analysis. To facilitate binary logistic regression and ensure adequate numbers within outcome categories, participants reporting neutral satisfaction were grouped with those reporting dissatisfaction. Although this approach enabled a more stable analysis of factors associated with overall satisfaction versus non-satisfaction, neutral responses may not be conceptually equivalent to dissatisfied responses and may represent a distinct group. Consequently, some loss of information and potential misclassification cannot be excluded. Future studies with larger samples may benefit from using ordinal regression models that preserve the full range of satisfaction responses. Sixth, the study focused exclusively on students’ perspectives and excluded supervisors’ views, which are essential for a more comprehensive understanding of the supervision process. Finally, contextual factors such as institutional policies, supervisor workload, and resource availability were not directly measured, although they are known to influence the quality of supervision.

Suggestions for future research

Future research should build on these findings by adopting longitudinal designs to examine how perceptions of supervision evolve over time, particularly before and after graduation. Such approaches would help clarify whether satisfaction reflects short-term experiences or long-term outcomes.

In addition, qualitative studies (e.g., interviews or focus groups) are needed to provide deeper insights into the dynamics of the supervisory relationship, including communication patterns, expectations, and challenges. Exploring supervisors’ perspectives would also be valuable in identifying barriers to effective supervision, such as workload, institutional constraints, and lack of training.

Future studies should also evaluate the effectiveness of structured supervision interventions, such as supervisor training programs, formal supervision agreements, and integrated research dissemination strategies. Given the observed importance of dissemination, further research could explore how participation in conferences and publications influences career trajectories, postgraduate enrollment, and research productivity.

Finally, comparative studies across different disciplines, institutions, or countries would provide a broader understanding of how cultural and institutional contexts shape supervision practices. As research supervision is increasingly influenced by policy, funding structures, and accountability frameworks, further work is needed to examine how these systemic factors impact both student experiences and research outcomes.

Conclusion

This study highlights the pivotal role of supervisory engagement and the quality of mentorship in shaping pharmacy students’ satisfaction with graduation project supervision in Saudi Arabia. While overall satisfaction was high, important gaps remain in individualized mentorship, research dissemination, and clarity of supervisory roles.

Frequent supervisor–student interaction and accessible, supportive mentorship emerged as key drivers of positive research experiences. Students also demonstrated a preference for supervisors based on practical and relational factors, rather than academic prestige, underscoring the importance of effective communication and engagement. However, the relatively low rates of conference participation and publication suggest that undergraduate research is not being fully utilized for scholarly development.

Overall, these findings emphasize the need for structured, student-centered supervision models, enhanced support for research dissemination, and improved supervisor–student alignment. Addressing these areas may strengthen research training and better prepare pharmacy graduates for future academic and professional roles.

Abbreviations

AOR

Adjusted Odds Ratio

CI

Confidence Interval

GPA

Grade Point Average

SPSS

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

Authors’ contributions

F.A. conceptualized and designed the study and drafted the manuscript. F.A., M.A.E., and J.A.E. contributed to the methodology and performed the data analysis. F.A., M.A.E., J.A.E., F.K.A., M.A., B.A., H.A., A.A.A., M.A., Y.A.A., and A.A.H. participated in data collection, contributed to data interpretation, critically revised the manuscript, and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Funding

No specific funding was received for this study.

Data availability

The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are included within the article.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Deanship of Scientific Research at Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University. All participants were provided with detailed information regarding the study objectives and procedures prior to enrollment. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants, and participation was entirely voluntary. Participants were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any stage without penalty. All study procedures were conducted in accordance with the approved ethical guidelines, the regulations of the university’s ethics committee, and the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and its subsequent revisions.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.