Table 3.

Research during training

How often did you record standard outcome measures of the RDs during training?
Always	4 (7.55%)
Often	34 (64.15%)
Seldom	13 (24.53%)
Never	1 (1.89%)
Other	1 (1.89%)
Kind of thesis during training
Clinical cohort/case control study	17 (32.1%)
Retrospective data collection	40 (75.5%)
Clinical trial	14 (26.4%)
Basic immunology/ laboratory based	14 (26.4%)
On a scale of 0–10, to what extent your thesis changed your patient care perspective (median IQR)	5.5 (5–8)
Familiarity with publication ethics
Attended a structured course	19 (35.9%)
Confident based on self-reading	17 (32.1%)
Familiar but not confident	24 (45.3%)
Neither familiar nor confident	3 (5.7%)
Familiarity with statistical analysis
Attended a structured course	17 (32.1%)
Confident based on self-reading	11 (20.8%)
Familiar but not confident	28 (52.8%)
Neither familiar nor confident	6 (11.3%)
On a scale of 0–10, how adequate is the time allotted for research (median IQR)	6 (2–6)
On a scale of 01–10, how compulsory should research be on training curriculum? (Median IQR)	10 (6–10)
What could have boosted research initiative during training?
Exclusive time apart from regular clinical/ academic duties	42 (79.25%)
Relevant topics	19 (35.85%)
Dedicated funds	32 (60.38%)
Support staff	30 (56.60%)
Better academic career opportunities	21 (39.62%)
Not applicable	1 (1.89%)