Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Jul 17;15(7):e0235685. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235685

The effectiveness of a Malaysian House Officer (HO) preparatory course for medical graduates on self-perceived confidence and readiness: A quasi-experimental study

Aneesa Abdul Rashid 1,2,*, Sazlina Shariff Ghazali 1,2, Iliana Mohamad 3, Maliza Mawardi 1, Husna Musa 4, Dalila Roslan 5
Editor: Charles A Ameh6
PMCID: PMC7367441  PMID: 32678838

Abstract

Introduction

House Officer (HO) Preparatory Courses in Malaysia are designed to prepare medical graduates to work as a HO. The courses are designed to address the issues related to lack of confidence and readiness to work, which could lead to stress and HO dropping out of work. The modules focus on how to prepare medical graduates into the real-life working scenario. Hence, we determined the effectiveness of a HO Preparatory Course on the level of confidence and readiness to work among medical graduates.

Methodology

A quasi-experimental study was conducted at three time-points (pre-intervention, post-intervention and one-month after working as a HO) on the level of confidence and readiness of medical graduates. The intervention was the Medicorp module, which included information and training needed for the HO such as common clinical cases in the wards, case referrals, experience sharing and hands on clinical training. We recruited eligible participants undergoing the course between April–November 2018. The adapted IMU Student Competency Survey was used to measure the confidence and readiness levels, which were scored from a Likert scale of 1–5. The higher score indicated higher levels of confidence or readiness.

Results

A total of 239 participants were recruited at baseline (90% response rate). They were mostly female (77.8%), Malays (79.1%), single (90.0%), graduated overseas (73.6%), in 2018 (65.3%). The mean (SE) confidence scores significantly increased from 2.18 (1.00) pre-course to 3.50 (0.75) immediately after course and 3.79 (0.92) after one-month of work (p <0.001, η2 = 0.710). The mean (SE) readiness scores at pre-course, immediately and one-month post work were 2.36 (1.03), 3.46(0.78) and 3.70(0.90), respectively (p< 0.001, η2 = 0.612).

Conclusion

The HO Preparatory Course module was effective in increasing levels of confidence and readiness for medical graduates, most of whom are overseas graduates; namely Egypt, Russia and Indonesia.

Introduction

University graduates are often said to have lack of confidence and readiness to work [13]. A proposed conceptual framework for work readiness skills included people qualities and skills, professional knowledge and skills, and technology knowledge and skills [4]. A study that looked into university graduates in Australia, suggests that there are a lack of synergy between the university curriculum with the development of “work-ready employees”[2]. In the medical line, House Officers (HOs) were reported to feel less confident in working especially in the initial phase of their training [3]. In the UK, around 36%-59% of medical graduates felt that they were prepared to work after one year of graduation [5,6]. Among the factors that make HOs feel unprepared, were the lack of clinical experience they have especially in terms of holding responsibility as a clinician [3]. This is often because of the legal restraint they have during their years as students [3].

There are many factors that affect work readiness among healthcare professionals. These include social intelligence, organisational acumen, work competence and personal characteristics [4]. A qualitative study among nurses and their readiness to work found that education with more “hands-on” experience near the end of the education program was a necessity [7]. Some sectors felt it was essential to create a tool to assess readiness to work in the healthcare industry for example there are validated tools to assess readiness for the physiotherapist [4,8]. Improvement of readiness were successfully seen among surgical interns after implementing modules that used hands on simulation training [9].

The lack of confidence and readiness among HOs may affect their wellbeing. Previous studies reported they were stressed and many were emotionally burnt out [1012]. This can lead to extension of their posting, and sometimes even dropping out of the HO training all together. This gives a negative impact on not just the healthcare system, but also the economy [13]. With this in mind, a few steps have been taken by some organisations in Malaysia to organise HO Preparatory courses. These courses are aimed at medical graduates to prepare themselves for the HO postings. These courses have become increasingly popular and are opened to all medical graduates who plan to work in Malaysia. It focuses on preparing the participants to cope with the needs of the working environment. This includes information on the technical details of the working shift system and on call system, and knowledge on the work scope such as clerking, referrals and ward management. In addition, soft skills such as time management is also included. This course is carried out during the waiting period, between the time they graduate until the time they officially work as a HO [13]. This period would range between 6–15 months. However, there are limited published studies that evaluates the effectiveness of these courses. Therefore, we assessed the effectiveness of a HO Preparatory course in addressing medical graduates’ confidence and readiness to work.

Materials and method

This was a pre-post, quasi-experimental study evaluating the effectiveness of a HO Preparatory module intervention on medical graduates. The participants received an intervention which was the HO Preparatory course. The participants were required to answer a self-administered pre-tested structured questionnaire prior to intervention and immediately post intervention. At the one-month after working as a HO follow-up, the participants were interviewed via a telephone call guided by the pre-tested structured questionnaire. The participants were initially reminded of their participation on this study via WhatsApp messages, which was part of the effort to facilitate the module a few days before making the call. The participants were then followed up via calls after office hours. If there was no response, another two reminders via personal messages was sent approximately one week apart. Participants would reply the messages on which the appropriate dates were available to be interviewed. There was no control group due to limitation of time and resources.

Setting and sample

Participants involved in the study were medical graduates who registered to attend the HO Preparatory course from April until November 2018. Those who had not graduated, already working as a HO and with known diagnosis of psychiatric illness were excluded from this study. The site of this study was at an International Youth Centre (IYC) near the capital city of Kuala Lumpur. The location was central to allow ease for participants from other states to attend the program. The IYC was equipped with training and boarding facilities.

The sample size was calculated using the G*Power 3.1 sample size calculator software using mean confidence levels of HOs in a study by Williams et al [14]. After accounting for a 30% attrition rate, 80% power and 0.05% significance level, the estimated sample size was 208.

The participants were informed regarding the study by the researchers prior to starting the HO Preparatory course. Verbal and written informed consents were taken from the eligible participants who agreed to participate in the study prior to enrolling in the course. Privacy and confidentiality were ensured and maintained. Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee Involving Human Subjects Universiti Putra Malaysia (JKEUPM-2018-054) and the Medical Research Ethics Committee, Ministry of Health Malaysia (NMRR-18-978-41224). The study protocol was registered with the National Institutes of Health as trial registration (NCT03510195).

The HO preparatory course module intervention

As mentioned earlier there are many HO preparatory courses available, but not many of them are held on a consistent and regular basis. Medicorp has been conducting HO Preparatory courses consistently for the past two years, on a monthly basis. Prior to this, the HO Preparatory course was conducted by a medical non-governmental organization since 2012. It was later on privatised. It is a three-day program that relies heavily on feedback of its alumni, many of whom are now medical officers and young specialists. The course charges RM 450 (USD 100) for a three-day course this includes cost of venue, refreshments and food, training facilities such as medical equipment and mannequins, and trainer fees. The cost of running this HO preparatory course is around RM 350–400 per person. Members of the alumni comes back as facilitators and trainers to help with the training. Also, at the same time they would give feedback on how to improve the module. Involvement of the alumni as peer trainers remain one of the unique qualities of Medicorp. Often times the senior HOs would become the trainers and give tips and tricks to help out the juniors. Apart from that, Medicorp has established an exclusive follow-up system starting from before the course, where participants are enlisted in a WhatsApp group. The participants are later followed up after completion of the course to assist them with the HO application process which are guided by Medicorp’s staff. Malaysia has an online system for HO placements, which is called the e-Houseman. This online portal is opened for registration at specific times in the year. This process is not found in other HO preparatory courses. Details of the course has been described elsewhere [13].

Outcome measures

The primary outcome measured in this study was confidence to work as a HO, while the secondary measure was readiness to work as a HO and their psychological well-being.

Confidence and readiness were measured using the adapted International Medical University (IMU) Student Competency Survey [1517]. The adaptation of this survey has been discussed elsewhere [13]. The participants were asked on how confident they are in practical skills, generic skills, and personal skills. They rated their confidence level on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 with the higher scores representing higher levels of confidence. The level of readiness had only one question, asking the participants how ready they are should they have to begin work tomorrow. The same Likert scale was used, asking the participants to rate their readiness levels on a scale of 1 to 5. The adapted questionnaire was pretested, and the subscales had Cronbach alpha ranging between 0.92 and 0.96. The original authors of the tool used to assess confidence and readiness among senior students, had decided the level of confidence to be a minimum level of ‘3’ for their final year students. This was the standard set in a local Malaysian University [15]. We did not disclose this to the participants as we did not want this information to effect their response to the questionnaire.

In addition, the psychosocial wellbeing of the participants were measured using the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale with 21 items (DASS-21). It is a valid and reliable tool with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.96 to 0.97 for DASS-Depression, 0.84 to 0.92 for DASS-Anxiety, and 0.90 to 0.95 for DASS-Stress [18]. In this scale, the higher the score, the higher the levels of depression, anxiety and stress. The normal scores are 0–9, 0–7, 0–14 respectively. Participants with abnormal scores would be contacted via the follow up system and were advised who and where to seek help.

Statistical analysis

Data was analysed using the IBM Social Package for Social Science (SPSS) V.24. A descriptive analysis of participant demographic characteristics, clinical experience and baseline level of confidence, readiness and psychological well-being were presented as mean and standard deviation (SD) for continuous variables and as frequency and percentage for categorical variables. Chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests were conducted to compare between participants who completed and withdrew from the study. A repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted to determine intervention effectiveness within the groups from baseline, immediately after the intervention to one-month after starting work. The results were presented as mean and standard error (SE), partial eta squared, and significant value was set at p<0.05.

Results

A total of 267 participants registered for the course and were invited to participate within the timeframe of this study period of recruitment. Only 239 returned their baseline questionnaires. At the time-point immediately after the intervention, 224 participants returned their completed questionnaires. At the subsequent follow up of the study, which was one-month post working as a HO, 101 answered the questionnaire. Fig 1 illustrates the flow of study participants in this study. Comparison of baseline characteristics of the participants who were lost to follow-up and those who completed the study showed no difference in their age (p = 0.322), gender (p = 0.739), ethnicity (p = 0.931), marital status (p = 0.499), levels of overall confidence (p = 0.800) and readiness to work (p = 0.141), DASS-Depression level(p = 0.340), DASS-Anxiety level (p = 0.513) and DASS-Stress level (p = 0.076) (results not shown).

Fig 1. Flow of study participants.

Fig 1

Table 1 shows the sociodemographic details of the participants. Most of the participants were aged 25.66 (1.54) years old. They were mainly females (186, 77.8%), not married (215, 90%), Malay (189, 79.1%), Muslims (194, 81.2%), graduated from outside of a Malaysian institution (176, 73.6%) in 2018 (156, 65.3%).

Table 1. Sociodemographic factors of participants (N = 239).

Factors n (%)
Age, mean (SD) (years) 25.66 (1.54)
Gender
Male 53 (22.2)
Female 186 (77.8)
Marital Status
Single/ never married 215 (90.0)
Married 24 (10.0)
Ethnicity
Malay 189 (79.2)
Chinese 19 (7.9)
Indian 19 (7.9)
Others 12 (5.0)
Religion
Islam 194 (81.2)
Christian 18 (7.5)
Hindu 16(6.7)
Buddha 7 (2.9)
Others 4 (1.7)
Year of Graduation
2016 2 (0.8)
2017 81 (33.9)
2018 156 (65.3)
Place of Graduation
Local 63 (26.4)
Overseas 176 (73.6)

SD = standard deviation.

The mean confidence level for practical tasks, generic and personal skills over time (at baseline, immediately after (post) intervention and one-month after working as a HO) are shown in Table 2. The levels of confidence were significantly increased across all the three domains over time except for “taking a history and performing relevant examination at first assessment of new admissions” in the generic skills sub-domain, and “lumbar puncture” in the practical tasks sub-domain when comparing the baseline scores to one-month post work scores.

Table 2. Mean confidence level for practical tasks, generic and personal skills over time.

Mean confidence level (SE) at baseline Mean confidence level (SE) at post intervention P-value Mean confidence level (SE) at one-month after working P-value Partial η2
Generic Skills
Taking a history and performing relevant examination at first assessment of new admissions 3.29(3.19) 3.55(0.88) 1.00 3.99(0.72) 0.097 0.187
Make plan of management for new admissions 2.23(0.97) 3.32(0.84) <0.001** 3.52(0.80) <0.001** 0.614
Recognizing sick patients 2.96(0.92) 3.77(0.67) 3.79(0.75) 0.506
Functioning as a team member in assessing and managing sick patients 2.87(0.91) 3.85(0.68) 3.83(0.80) 0.564
Prioritizing and managing ward work 2.44(1.04) 3.83(0.80) 3.88(0.78) 0.686
Practical tasks
Starting resuscitation in hospital 2.22(0.78) 3.69(0.77) <0.001** 2.90(1.01) <0.001** 0.738
IV-line insertion (adult) 2.82(1.02) 4.06(0.80) 4.19(0.79) 0.656
Blood taking (adult) 3.18(1.11) 4.25(0.72) 4.34(0.73) 0.562
Inserting urinary catheter (male) 2.79(1.14) 4.33(0.67) 4.07(0.96) 0.637
Inserting urinary catheter (female) 2.76(1.16) 4.31(0.66) 4.29(0.81) 0.650
Do basic suturing and tie 2.49(0.95) 3.93(0.81) 3.40(1.00) 0.720
Prescribing common medications (format, not dosage) 2.31 (0.93) 3.33(0.91) 4.11(0.82) 0.703
Mean confidence level (SE) at baseline Mean confidence level (SE) at post intervention P-value Mean confidence level (SE) at one-month after working P-value Partial η2
Requesting radiological investigations like CXR, CT 2.30(0.95) 3.64(0.80) 3.95(0.97) 0.717
Do a comprehensive review on patients during rounds 2.14(0.84) 3.82(3.04) 3.93(0.83) 0.748
Referring cases to another department 1.99(0.83) 3.60(0.74) 3.73(0.90) 0.785
Assisting operations 2.09(0.90) 3.35(0.84) 3.66(0.98) 0.724
Prescribing IV fluid (format of writing) 1.90(0.80) 3.15(0.91) 3.64(0.85) 0.742
Lumbar Puncture 1.67(0.74) 2.29(1.13) 1.89(0.88) 0.577 0.264
Personal skills
Team-working: e.g. sharing ward work, arranging rosters 3.32(1.09) 3.96(0.71) <0.001** 4.04(0.85) <0.001** 0.269
Handling criticisms from your senior colleagues 3.04(1.10) 3.78(0.82) 4.02(0.93) 0.413
Coping with additional, unexpected tasks 3.03(0.10) 3.72(0.81) 3.88(0.98) 0.338
Working independently away from home 3.39(1.06) 3.68(0.97) 0.042* 3.98(0.99) 0.159
Referring cases to seniors 2.74(1.00) 3.70(0.76) <0.001** 4.06(0.81) 0.565

SE = Standard error

*p < 0.05 &

**p<0.001 = statistical significance.

There was a significant increase for overall confidence and readiness to start working as a HO when comparing baseline mean scores with immediately after intervention and one-month post work. Mean scores significantly increased at immediately post intervention 3.50 (0.75) and 3.46 (0.78) for both confidence and readiness scores, respectively. Table 3 summarises the mean score for the overall confidence and readiness.

Table 3. Overall mean confidence and readiness scores over time.

At baseline At post intervention P-value At one-month after working P-value Partial η2
Mean (SE) Overall confidence score 2.18(1.00) 3.50(0.75) <0.001** 3.79(0.92) <0.001** 0.710
Mean (SE) Readiness score 2.36(1.03) 3.46(0.78) - - -

SE = standard error

**p<0.01 = statistical significance.

Table 4 shows the mean scores for depression, anxiety and stress among the participants. All the mean scores are within the normal range. There was a decrease in the levels of depression, anxiety and stress after one-month of work. There was a significant reduction of levels of stress (p = 0.01) from 11.78 (8.05) to 8.58 (10.33) one-month after working as a HO. The normal stress scores are 0–14.

Table 4. Overall mean scores for depression, anxiety and stress.

Mean (SD) Mean post one-month working (SD) p Partial η2
Depression 8.67 (7.93) 7.80(8.95) 0.479 0.005
Anxiety 9.75(7.24) 7.43(9.54) 0.063 0.035
Stress 11.78 (8.05) 8.58(10.33) 0.019* 0.055

*p<0.05 = statistical significance.

Discussion

This study found the HO Preparatory course to be effective in increasing the level of confidence and readiness among medical graduates immediately after and one-month after working, compared to baseline. We also report the levels of depression, anxiety and stress reduced one-month after work compared to baseline. However, only reduction of the stress levels was significant.

We found all confidence levels in practical task and generic skills pre-intervention lower compared to a local Malaysian university final year medical students in a previous study [15]. This could be contributed by the large number of participants from overseas whom are not exposed to clinical procedures due the strict policies in the countries they studied [19]. Another reason for this may be because local graduates are more familiar with the Malaysian hospital setting and the common illnesses encountered in the country. In addition to that, the syllabus in overseas institutions may not be consistent with the standard Malaysian syllabus [19]. We also note that the majority of participants were female. This suggests more females feel less confident and ready to start work. Male doctors have been reported to being more confident when it comes to working. Females, despite displaying the same level of performance have been reported to have lesser confidence and are more anxious [20,21].

Post intervention, confidence levels reached the minimum amount required for final year medical students which was a score of ‘3’ (except for ‘performing a lumbar puncture’) [15,16]. Both results for immediately post intervention and one-month after work showed a significant increase in confidence levels. For work readiness, our scores were comparable to a study done on final year medical students who were towards the end of training at a local university [17]. Another study done in Croatia reports that their participants scored 5 out of a possible 10 score for their readiness to work with patients. This is assumed to be lower as the participants in this post intervention group scored slightly higher than half the total score of 5 [22]. However, this study did not have any interventions done on participants.

There has been several studies looking into the preparedness of junior doctors to commence work. In a previous qualitative study in the United Kingdom (UK) researchers found that lack of preparedness among medical graduates were because many of them were merely observers during their student postings and did not play an active role as a team [23]. While another study in Australia suggests that certain types of training may be carried out jointly with the universities and hospitals [24]. Though these may include policies on a bigger platform level involving the stakeholders, the HO Preparatory courses may be a small step towards addressing the issues of HO confidence and readiness to work. This is because it addresses the medical graduates’ concerns in a different perspective. The course is a compilation of didactic learning and simulation, helping participants understand the scope of work and what is expected of them in the local setting. This is similar to a surgical intern course carried out in the United States (US) that was found to be an effective course [9]. Apart from that, the method of learning from peers and seniors are a favourable method among doctors [25]. This is incorporated in the HO Preparatory courses making it an attractive method of learning.

Focusing on psychosocial wellbeing, this study found the mean level of depression, stress and anxiety were within normal range. Although we noted the anxiety level to be slightly higher prior to intervention with a score 9.75 (normal range: 0–9). It has been reported that the prevalence of anxiety among HOs are similarly high in other local centres which are around 60% - 64% [11,12]. A previous study reported that the high level of anxiety among HOs were associated with them perceiving as being bullied [11]. On the other hand, those that are stressed and depressed are more likely to think of quitting [11]. The levels of stress had significantly lowered in this study. Hence the intervention has proven effective in addressing the needs of the participants when dealing with stressors in their working environment.

Strength and limitation

This is the first study of its kind evaluating the effectiveness of a HO Preparatory course that specifically looks into medical graduates as a participant, and following them up after they start work as a HO. However, there are some limitations of this present study. Firstly, it did not have a control, therefore we were unable to compare with those that did not receive intervention. This study is not representative of medical graduates in Malaysia as a whole, as this course is not compulsory and is opened to those who wish to join. Hence, attracting only those who feel they needed help in preparing for their HO-ship. It is also important to mention that this is a paid course, thus limiting the participants to those that have the financial means. Lastly, there are many factors that may affect the confidence, readiness and psychological well-being post working one-month including hospital HO inductions and the social support of the participants. The most challenging part of the study was following up the participants when they have started working due to their busy schedules. The other difficulty encountered during this study that contributed to the low rate of retention of participation towards the end of the study, was obtaining consent from the individual hospitals the participating HOs worked. This was done to fulfil the criteria of the ethics board.

Conclusion and recommendations

This HO Preparatory Course module, involving mostly overseas medical graduates was effective in increasing levels of confidence and readiness to work as a HO. In addition, there was a significant reduction of stress levels among the participants compared to before the intervention. There is a need for more robust future studies that compares a HO Preparatory course with controls. Furthermore, the needs and concerns of medical graduates into preparation for working life should be explored in future studies through qualitative methods.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Mean confidence levels for generic, practical task and personal skills at different time points.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Overall mean confidence and readiness scores at different time points.

(DOCX)

S1 File. Questionnaire.

(PDF)

S2 File. Quasi-experimental study on the effectiveness of a house officer preparatory course for medical graduates on self-perceived confidence and readiness: A study protocol.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the funders of this study, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) University Community and Transformation Centre (UCTC) (grant no. UPM/UCTC900/3/2/KTGS-05–18) and Medigrow (Medicorp Resources) for their collaboration in research planning and training. We thank Dr Halidah Mohd Yusuf, our research assistant in assisting this project. We would also like to thank the Director General of Health Malaysia for his permission to publish this article.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) University Community and Transformation Centre (UCTC) (grant no. UPM/UCTC900/3/2/KTGS-05–18). The funders did not play any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. URL Link: https://uctc.upm.edu.my/knowledge_transfer_grants/ktgs_jinm_grant-6340.

References

  • 1.Iftikhar Makki B, Salleh R, Ali Memon M, Harun H. The Relationship between Work Readiness Skills, Career Self-efficacy and Career Exploration among Engineering Graduates: A Proposed Framework. Res J Appl Sci Eng Technol. 2015. July 25;10(9):1007–11. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Cavanagh J, Burston M, Southcombe A, Bartram T. Contributing to a graduate-centred understanding of work readiness: An exploratory study of Australian undergraduate students’ perceptions of their employability. Int J Manag Educ. 2015. November;13(3):278–88. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Miles S, Kellett J, Leinster SJ. Medical graduates ‘ preparedness to practice: a comparison of undergraduate medical school training. BMC Educ. 2017;17(33):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Caballero CL, Walker A. Work readiness in graduate recruitment and selection: A review of current assessment methods. J Teach Learn Grad Employab. 2010. August 17;1(1):13. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Goldacre MJ, Taylor K, Lambert TW. Views of junior doctors about whether their medical school prepared them well for work: questionnaire surveys. BMC Med Educ. 2010;10(78):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Goldacre MJ, Lambert TW, Svirko E. Foundation doctors ‘ views on whether their medical school prepared them well for work: UK graduates of 2008 and 2009. Postgrad Med J. 2014;90:63–68. 10.1136/postgradmedj-2012-131321 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Wolff AC, Pesut B, Regan S. New graduate nurse practice readiness: Perspectives on the context shaping our understanding and expectations. Nurse Educ Today. 2010. February;30(2):187–91. 10.1016/j.nedt.2009.07.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Järvinen T, Eklöf N, Salminen L. Factors related to nursing students’ readiness to enter working life–A scoping literature review. Nurse Educ Pract. 2018. March;29:191–9. 10.1016/j.nepr.2018.01.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Antonoff MB, Shelstad RC, Schmitz C, Chipman J, D’Cunha J. A Novel Critical Skills Curriculum for Surgical Interns Incorporating Simulation Training Improves Readiness for Acute Inpatient Care. J Surg Educ. 2009. September;66(5):248–54. 10.1016/j.jsurg.2009.09.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Yusoff MSB, Tan YJ, Esa AR. Stress, stressors and coping strategies among house officers in a Malaysian hospital. ASEAN J Psychiatry. 2011;12(August):85–94. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Shahruddin SA, Saseedaran P, Salleh A, Ahmad Azmi CA, Mohammad Alfaisal NHI, Fuad MDF, et al. Prevalence and Risk Factors of Stress, Anxiety and Depression among House Officers in Kota. Educ Med J. 2016;8(1):31–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Al-Dubai SAR, Ganasegeran K, Perianayagam W, Rampal KG. Emotional burnout, perceived sources of job stress, professional fulfillment, and engagement among medical residents in Malaysia. Sci World J. 2013;2013(Article ID 137620):9 pages. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Rashid AA, Shariff Ghazali S, Mohamad I, Mawardi M, Roslan D, Musa H. Quasi-experimental study on the effectiveness of a house officer preparatory course for medical graduates on self-perceived confidence and readiness: a study protocol. BMJ Open. 2019. August;9(8):e024488 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024488 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Williams S, Dale J, Glucksman E, Wellesley a. Senior house officers’ work related stressors, psychological distress, and confidence in performing clinical tasks in accident and emergency: a questionnaire study. BMJ. 1997;314(7082):713–8. 10.1136/bmj.314.7082.713 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Lai NM, Ramesh JC. The product of outcome-based undergraduate medical education: Competencies and readiness for internship. Singapore Med J. 2006;47(12):1053–1062. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lai NM, Sivalingam N, Ramesh JC. Medical students in their final six months of training: Progress in self-perceived clinical competence, and relationship between experience and confidence in practical skills. Singapore Med J. 2007;48(11):1018–1027. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Lai NM, Nalliah S, Jutti R, Hla Y, Lim V. The Educational Environment and Self- perceived Clinical Competence of Senior Medical Students in a Malaysian Medical School. Educ Health. 2009;22(2):1–15. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lovibond PF, Lovibond SH. THE STRUCTURE OF NEGATIVE EMOTIONAL STATES: SCALES (DASS) WITH THE BECK DEPRESSION AND. Behav Res Ther. 1995;33(3):335–343. 10.1016/0005-7967(94)00075-u [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Yeoh CM, Thong KS, Seed HF, Abdul Taib NI, Husain M. Psychological morbidities amongst house officers in Sarawak General Hospital Kuching. 2019;74(4):5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Connick RM, Connick P, Klotsas AE, Tsagkaraki PA, Gkrania-Klotsas E. Procedural confidence in hospital based practitioners: implications for the training and practice of doctors at all grades. BMC Med Educ. 2009. December;9(1):2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Blanch DC, Hall JA, Roter DL, Frankel RM. Medical student gender and issues of confidence. Patient Educ Couns. 2008. September;72(3):374–81. 10.1016/j.pec.2008.05.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Gazibara T, Nurković S, Marić G, Kurtagić I, Kovačević N, Kisić-Tepavčević D, et al. Ready to work or not quite? Self-perception of practical skills among medical students from Serbia ahead of graduation. Croat Med J. 2015. August;56(4):375–82. 10.3325/cmj.2015.56.375 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Illing JC, Morrow GM, Rothwell nee Kergon CR, Burford BC, Baldauf BK, Davies CL, et al. Perceptions of UK medical graduates’ preparedness for practice: A multi-centre qualitative study reflecting the importance of learning on the job. BMC Med Educ. 2013. December;13(1):34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kelly C, Noonan CLF, Monagle JP. Preparedness for internship: a survey of new interns in a large Victorian Health Service. Aust Health Rev. 2011;35(2):146 10.1071/AH10885 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Wiggins N, Haldar S, Biswas S. How and Why Do Junior Doctors Study? What Materials Do They Use? J Biomed Educ. 2013;Article ID:1–6. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Charles A Ameh

13 May 2020

PONE-D-19-35709

The Effectiveness of a Malaysian House Officer (HO) Preparatory Course for Medical Graduates on Self-Perceived Confidence and Readiness: A Quasi-Experimental Study The Effectiveness of a HO Preparatory Course

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Rashid,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

I am recommending minor revision, please submit point by point response to address the reviewers comments. 

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 27 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Charles A. Ameh, PhD, MPH, FWACS (OBGYN), FRCOG

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS ONE will consider submissions that present new methods, software, or databases as the primary focus of the manuscript if they meet the criteria of utility, validation, and availability described here: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-methods-software-databases-and-tools. To meet these criteria, please provide supporting materials enabling other teachers and researchers to replicate your teaching intervention such as sample worksheets, a detailed lesson plan or curriculum or other educational materials. If you include supporting materials, they should not be under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 3 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

5. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thanks for your submission, I am recommending minor revision, please submit point by point response to address the reviewers comments.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study explores the effectiveness of a HO preparation course conducted for newly qualified doctors in Malaysia, comparing confidence, readiness for practice and psychological well-being.

On the whole the findings seem to support the authors conclusions although they rightly include in the limitations of the study, the lack of a control group and the large loss to follow-up at 1 month post employment. The study includes a high proportion of the participants who qualified overseas (although it is not stated where) which it may be worth reflecting in their conclusions.

- The authors state they can not publish the data due to personal information it contains. Is it not possible to publish an anonymised version of the data set, as happens with many other studies?

- The use of English could be improved generally but particularly in lines 103-104 and 280-281.

- The table attribution in line 241 is incorrect.

- In line 272, the authors describe a minimum confidence level require for final year students. It would be beneficial to clarify this point including who sets the minimum, are the students/newly qualified doctors aware of this?

- There is not mention of the cost of the course, just that it is now a private enterprise. Can they comment on the cost of doing the course and any impact this might have on the recruitment or findings of the current study.

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting and well written paper that makes a valuable contribution. I would be interested to know if House Officers were provided with a formal induction by the hospitals they worked in and if so what the nature of the induction was as this may have had a bearing on the scores one month after commencing work.

The paper would also be improved by providing a more detailed description as to how the skills were taught, for example, were models used to teach practical skills. The topics covered seem a lot for a three day course and it would be interesting to understand a bit more as to the timetable and structure of the course.

I am concerned about making direct comparisons with the 1 month after starting score as the numbers returning the survey were less than half. But nevertheless this paper makes a meaningful contribution to an important subject

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jul 17;15(7):e0235685. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235685.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


29 May 2020

Dear Reviewers and Editors,

Thank you for the constructive comments in making this manuscript better. We have answered the comments as best we could below. We have also attached a table for easier viewing to address each comment in the "comments for reviewer" file.

Editor & Journal Requirements

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

>> Thank you for your suggestion, however our protocol is already published at: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/8/e024488

It is registered in https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/8/e024488

It is also attached as S2 File

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

>> We have done our best to ensure that the amended manuscript meet the PLOS ONE’s style

2. PLOS ONE will consider submissions that present new methods, software, or databases as the primary focus of the manuscript if they meet the criteria of utility, validation, and availability described here: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-methods-software-databases-and-tools. To meet these criteria, please provide supporting materials enabling other teachers and researchers to replicate your teaching intervention such as sample worksheets, a detailed lesson plan or curriculum or other educational materials. If you include supporting materials, they should not be under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY.

>>Thank you for your suggestions. We attach our questionnaire (S1 file), and also the details of the module and timeline of the course is published in the protocol paper as mentioned above (S2 file)

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

>> Thank you for highlighting about the data availability as required by PLOS One. We have included 2 supporting tables to describe the data we used in this study (S1 & S2 Tables). However, we did not put these supporting tables in our manuscript. At present, we are not able to share the raw data as we are doing more ongoing data analysis for upcoming publications related to this research project.

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

>> Answered as above

4. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 3 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

>> We have made the relevant corrections, thank you for pointing out the error in type.

5. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

>> We have done as per requested

Reviewer 1

This study explores the effectiveness of a HO preparation course conducted for newly qualified doctors in Malaysia, comparing confidence, readiness for practice and psychological well-being.

>>Thank you for your kind comments, we have tried to address all your comments as best we could

On the whole the findings seem to support the authors conclusions although they rightly include in the limitations of the study, the lack of a control group and the large loss to follow-up at 1 month post-employment.

>>It was most challenging to follow up the young doctors as mentioned in our limitations, this included the busy schedule and also the large amount of administrative work of following up each hospital to request permission on follow up of the participants.

The study includes a high proportion of the participants who qualified overseas (although it is not stated where) which it may be worth reflecting in their conclusions.

>> Thank you for this suggestion, we have added on this to conclusion and in the abstract

- The authors state they can not publish the data due to personal information it contains. Is it not possible to publish an anonymised version of the data set, as happens with many other studies?

>> Thank you for highlighting about the data availability as required by PLOS One. We have included 2 supporting tables to describe the data we used in this study (S1 & S2 Tables). However, we did not put these supporting tables in our manuscript. At present, we are not able to share the raw data as we are doing more ongoing data analysis for upcoming publications related to this research project.

- The use of English could be improved generally but particularly in lines 103-104 and 280-281.

>> We have corrected the grammar on the mentioned lines and also the article as a whole

- The table attribution in line 241 is incorrect.

>> We have corrected it and attributed table 3 and 4 in their rightful position

- In line 272, the authors describe a minimum confidence level require for final year students. It would be beneficial to clarify this point including who sets the minimum, are the students/newly qualified doctors aware of this?

>> The original authors of the tool used to assess confidence and readiness among senior students, had decided the level of confidence to be a minimum level of ‘3’ for their final year students. This was the standard set in a local Malaysian University [15]. We did not disclose this to the participants as we did not want this information to effect their response to the questionnaire.

- There is not mention of the cost of the course, just that it is now a private enterprise.

- Can they comment on the cost of doing the course and any impact this might have on the recruitment or findings of the current study.

>>Thank you for this comment, we agree on this statement and have included explanations as below:

Materials & Methods/ outcome measures:

The course charges RM 450 (USD 100) for a three-day course this includes cost of venue, refreshments and food, training facilities such as medical equipment and mannequins, and trainer fees. The cost of running this HO preparatory course is around RM 350-400 per person

Strengths and limitations:

It is also important to mention that this is a paid course, thus limiting the participants to those that have the financial means

Reviewer 2

This is an interesting and well written paper that makes a valuable contribution.

>> Thank you for the encouraging comment, we feel that interventions such as this which is highly popular here, needs an evidence-based assessment

I would be interested to know if House Officers were provided with a formal induction by the hospitals they worked in and if so what the nature of the induction was as this may have had a bearing on the scores one month after commencing work.

>> From the feedback of the alumni, all hospitals would have their formal induction for house officers but is mainly on administrative issues and not on the hands-on experience itself.

We do acknowledge this as one of the potential bias of the follow up cohort and can be considered in future experiments which we recommend looking into control groups (mentioned in conclusion and recommendation)

We have also added this point in ‘strength and limitations’:

Lastly, there are many factors that may affect the confidence, readiness and psychological well-being post working one-month including hospital HO inductions and the social support of the participants

The paper would also be improved by providing a more detailed description as to how the skills were taught, for example, were models used to teach practical skills. The topics covered seem a lot for a three day course and it would be interesting to understand a bit more as to the timetable and structure of the course.

>> Thank you for the comment, the details of this course is published in a paper entitled Quasi-experimental study on the effectiveness of a house officer preparatory course for medical graduates on self-perceived confidence and readiness: a study protocol

We have attached this as file as additional file S1 for your reference

I am concerned about making direct comparisons with the 1 month after starting score as the numbers returning the survey were less than half.

>> We encountered many challenges in the follow up of this experiment. We did our best and invested tremendous efforts to follow up the participants in which we mentioned in ‘material and methods’

The participants were initially reminded of their participation on this study via WhatsApp messages, which was part of the effort to facilitate the module a few days before making the call. The participants were then followed up via calls after office hours. If there was no response, another two reminders via personal messages was sent approximately one week apart. Participants would reply the messages on which the appropriate dates were available to be interviewed.

But nevertheless this paper makes a meaningful contribution to an important subject

>> Thank you for your encouraging remark, we hope that this will help facilitate future efforts to improve medical training in the near future.

Thank you

Yours sincerely

Dr Aneesa Abdul Rashid

Attachment

Submitted filename: response to reviewers comments HO prep .docx

Decision Letter 1

Charles A Ameh

22 Jun 2020

The Effectiveness of a Malaysian House Officer (HO) Preparatory Course for Medical Graduates on Self-Perceived Confidence and Readiness: A Quasi-Experimental Study The Effectiveness of a HO Preparatory Course

PONE-D-19-35709R1

Dear Dr. Rashid,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Charles A. Ameh, PhD, MPH, FWACS (OBGYN), FRCOG

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Congratulations for addressing all the comments. I am pleased to recommend your manuscript for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is now ready for publication in my view. Issues raided by reviewers have been addressed and revisions made.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Charles A Ameh

26 Jun 2020

PONE-D-19-35709R1

The Effectiveness of a Malaysian House Officer (HO) Preparatory Course for Medical Graduates on Self-Perceived Confidence and Readiness: A Quasi-Experimental Study The Effectiveness of a HO Preparatory Course

Dear Dr. Rashid:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Charles A. Ameh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Mean confidence levels for generic, practical task and personal skills at different time points.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Overall mean confidence and readiness scores at different time points.

    (DOCX)

    S1 File. Questionnaire.

    (PDF)

    S2 File. Quasi-experimental study on the effectiveness of a house officer preparatory course for medical graduates on self-perceived confidence and readiness: A study protocol.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response to reviewers comments HO prep .docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES