This study employed a cross-sectional observational exploratory design (16), involving the administration of a self-completed questionnaire distributed to medical students across seven medical colleges in the UAE.

Inclusion criteria involved students enrolled in medical colleges across the UAE, studying in any year of Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS), or Doctor of Medicine (MD) courses. The survey was shared across participating colleges from May through October 2024. We utilized purposive sampling to reach the target population efficiently. With a confidence interval of 95%, a margin of error of 5%, and a power of 80%, we set the appropriate minimum sample size of the study to 347 responses, which was calculated using the online Raosoft sample calculator (17).

Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical methods. Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, and frequencies) summarized demographic characteristics, research participation, and perceived barriers. Inferential analyses included chi-square tests to assess associations between categorical variables, one-way ANOVA to compare group differences in continuous variables, and independent sample t-tests to compare research attitudes and experiences across key demographics. We conducted multivariate linear regression models to identify predictors of research attitudes, perceptions, motivation, participation, and barriers, reporting R-squared values and beta coefficients to evaluate model significance. Data analysis used SPSS version 29.0.2.0. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

The study was approved by the MBRU Institutional Review Board (Reference: MBRU IRB-2023–43) and Dubai Scientific Research Ethics Committee (DSREC) for Dubai Health Authority (Reference: DSREC-03/2024_16). All participants provided fully informed electronic consent before study commencement.

The study included 612 medical students from seven universities across the UAE. The majority were male (68.8%, n = 421) with a mean age of 20.19 years (SD = 2.04; range: 16–30 years). Two-thirds (66.5%, n = 407) were in the pre-clinical stage. Overall, 68.3% (n = 418) had participated in research, but only 15.7% (n = 96) had published; systematic reviews (16.7%, n = 16) and case reports (13.5%, n = 13) predominated (Table 1). Students were predominantly from Eastern Mediterranean (53.4%, n = 327) and South-East Asia (33.0%, n = 202) regions, with the most common nationalities being India (31.7%), UAE (12.1%), and Syria (10.6%). Academically, 69.4% (n = 425) had a CGPA ≥ 3.1.

Primary research motivations were academic excellence (356 selections; 58.2% of students), followed by CV improvement (210; 34.3%) and institutional requirements (173; 28.3%). Multiple responses were permitted. While 82.7% (n = 506) had access to research courses as part of their medical training, 19.8% (n = 100) found the knowledge insufficient. Future engagement in research was mixed; 25.5% (n = 156) reported no intention to continue research after graduation. Participation in research development activities was moderate (44.3%, n = 271).

Students expressed positive overall attitudes. 91.0% (n = 557) agreed research should be integrated into the medical curriculum (Table 2). A significant proportion recognized research as crucial for career evaluations (88.4%, n = 541) and CV building (91.0%, n = 557). Additionally, 94.1% (n = 576) believed research benefits regional scientific advancement, while 63.1% (n = 386) agreed research influences clinical practice and guidelines.

Research interest varied, with 83.7% (n = 512) finding it interesting and 70.0% (n = 427) reporting enjoyment in conducting research. Additionally, 78.6% (n = 481) felt validated by publishing. However, 42.8% (n = 262) strongly agreed and 41.3% (n = 253) agreed that research is challenging.

Confidence in research skills was mixed; 17.0% (n = 104) strongly agreed and 23.9% (n = 146) agreed they struggled with research concepts, while 16.7% (n = 102) strongly agreed and 24.2% (n = 148) agreed they lacked confidence in statistical analysis. Pressure to publish was prominent; 16.7% (n = 102) strongly agreed and 28.8% (n = 176) agreed that career progression requires publications. Regarding relevance, 22.2% (n = 136) strongly disagreed research was irrelevant to their education stage, while 19.8% (n = 121) remained neutral on its applicability.

Institutional and logistical challenges were notable (Table 3). Lack of funding was the most commonly reported barrier, with 20.6% (n = 126) strongly agreeing and 25.8% (n = 158) agreeing that it hindered research engagement. Lack of protected research time was a concern for nearly half of the students (46.9%, n = 287).

Mentorship and institutional support issues were also noticeable. 15.2% (n = 93) strongly agreed and 20.4% (n = 125) agreed lack of mentorship was a barrier. Similarly, lack of encouragement (13.1%, n = 80 strongly agreed; 21.4%, n = 131 agreed) and lack of supportive research environment (11.6%, n = 71 strongly agreed; 18.0%, n = 110 agreed) were frequently cited.

Access-related barriers showed varying patterns. Obtaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was difficult for 33.8% (n = 207), and 35.5% (n = 217) felt limited by a lack of laboratory equipment. However, access to research articles/digital resources was less problematic; only 23.6% (n = 144) reported limitations, while 33.3% (n = 204) disagreed that this was a barrier.

Skills and knowledge gaps were evident. 44.3% (n = 271) agreed they lacked confidence starting research projects, and 45.4% (n = 278) struggled with research study familiarity. Lack of statistical analysis skills was a major concern; 28.6% (n = 175) agreed, while 19.1% (n = 117) strongly agreed.

Motivation-related challenges that hindered engagement in research included lack of motivation (25.5%, n = 156 agreed; 13.9%, n = 85 strongly agreed) and lack of financial incentives (24.8%, n = 152 agreed; 15.8%, n = 97 strongly agreed). Collaboration barriers included lack of equal opportunities (19.3%, n = 118 strongly agreed; 22.5%, n = 138 agreed) and lack of collaboration between research centers (17.2%, n = 105 strongly agreed; 27.3%, n = 167 agreed). Cultural barriers between collaborators (23.0%, n = 141) and time zone differences (23.4%, n = 143) were also noted.

Chi-square tests examined associations between demographics and research factors. Age was significantly associated with multiple factors. Younger students engaged in research for CV-building, whereas older students focused on knowledge contribution (p < 0.001). Students ≤ 21 years perceived curriculum knowledge as sufficient (p = 0.002) and were inclined to pursue research after graduation (p = 0.002), but expressed highest concerns regarding lack of mentorship (p = 0.009) and absence of academic recognition (p = 0.021). Older students (≥ 24 years) reported greater difficulties balancing research and perceived funding lack as a barrier (p < 0.001). Participation in research development activities was lowest among the youngest and oldest students, peaking at ages 20–23 (p = 0.002). A trend was observed where older students were more likely to engage in research activities and subsequently publish their findings (p = 0.001).

Gender differences were significant. Males were more likely to view financial constraints as limiting (p = 0.007) and felt more pressure to publish for career advancement (p = 0.021). Females were more likely to report perceived lack of mentorship (p = 0.044), lack of encouragement (p = 0.07), and demonstrated lower research motivation (p = 0.028). No significant associations existed between gender and perceived knowledge sufficiency (p = 0.472), intention to continue research (p = 0.472), or participation in development activities (p = 0.651).

Year of study showed senior students (years 4–6) had significantly higher publishing likelihood (p < 0.001) but encountered greater challenges balancing research and academics (p < 0.001) and securing funding (p = 0.001). Students in earlier years (years 1–3) are more likely to express intent to pursue research (p = 0.003). A significant relationship existed between year and participation in development activities (p = 0.002), indicating greater engagement among pre-clinical students. Clinical students reported slightly lower access to structured research training (p = 0.005) and were more likely to perceive deficiencies in research education (p = 0.054). Clinical students were more likely to publish systematic reviews and case reports (p < 0.001).

Higher CGPA students (3.6–4.0) were more likely to be engaged in research (p < 0.001) but expressed concerns about networking opportunities (p = 0.045). Previous degree qualification was not significantly associated with perceived knowledge sufficiency (p = 0.725) or intention to continue research (p = 0.725).

Independent sample t-tests showed significant differences (p < 0.001) across age, gender, nationality, previous degree, year of study, academic stage, CGPA, previous research participation, previous publication, number of publications, research course in curriculum, perceived knowledge sufficiency, intention to continue research, and participation in development activities. Attitudes and Perception Scores (p < 0.001) and Research Barriers Scores (p = 0.035) showed significant differences across these variables.

One-way ANOVA assessed demographic and academic variables’ influence on scores. For Attitudes and Perception scores, significant associations existed with age (p = 0.012), type of research study published (p = 0.013), and number of publications (p = 0.043). For Research Barriers scores, significant associations existed with age (p < 0.001), nationality (p = 0.037), year of study (p < 0.001), academic stage (p = 0.039), CGPA (p = 0.043), and previous project participation (p < 0.001) (Table 4).

Multivariate linear regression determined factors influencing research attitudes, participation, and barriers (Table 5). Age (p = 0.024), time zone barriers (p = 0.036), and research barriers score (p < 0.001) significantly influenced attitudes. Nationality (p < 0.001), medical college (p = 0.001), year of study (p = 0.042), CGPA (p = 0.019), previous publication (p = 0.004), and participation in research activities (p = 0.001) were strong predictors of previous participation. Academic stage (p = 0.036), number of publications (p = 0.036), and educational course availability (p = 0.010) significantly influenced motivation. Research barriers were significantly associated with IRB approval difficulty (p < 0.001), attitudes/perceptions (p < 0.001), and lack of access to research resources (p = 0.035).

This nationwide multi-center study provides a thorough insight into the attitudes, perceptions, and barriers related to research among medical students in the UAE. Drawing on responses from 612 students spanning all years of study and multiple universities, it presents a comprehensive overview of the current landscape.

The study revealed positive attitudes from many students; however, significant barriers existed, including a lack of funding, mentorship, and research resources. Although 68.3% (n = 418) participated in research, only 15.7% (n = 96) published, with systematic reviews and case reports most common. Factors enabling engagement included academic excellence and CV enhancement, yet students faced institutional and logistical challenges. Inferential analyses revealed that age, gender, CGPA, and year of study significantly influenced research attitudes, participation, and perceived barriers. Regression models identified age, research barriers, collaboration-related constraints, time-zone barriers, and access to research training as key predictors of attitudes and involvement.

Our findings reveal a cohort of medical students who are highly motivated to engage in research yet constrained by uneven skills, limited confidence, and structural barriers such as insufficient mentorship and funding. This pattern of high enthusiasm coupled with practical limitations aligns with findings from regional multi-center and single-country studies, despite contextual differences in curricula and support models (26–28).

Similar trends have been observed in Bangladesh, South Africa, and Saudi Arabia, where students likewise perceive research as integral to medical careers and professional growth (19, 29–31). For instance, Nel et al. surveyed 1195 University of Cape Town medical students, finding 61% held positive attitudes toward research, substantially lower than the proportion observed in our study (> 90%) (29). Similarly, Noorelahi et al. studied 223 students at Taibah University, Saudi Arabia, with over 70% recognizing research as crucial for clinical practice and its positive implications for patient outcomes, similar to our findings, although their study included a balanced proportion of male and female students, whereas our study had a larger proportion of male respondents (19).

Positive attitudes stemmed from recognizing research as crucial for career evaluations and CV building, and research’s influence on clinical practice and guidelines. However, Queen’s University students perceived research differently—as a way to develop critical appraisal, information literacy, and critical thinking skills, and as an opportunity to identify future training pathways and form contacts (32).

Our multivariate regression revealed that academic stage, number of publications, and educational course availability significantly influenced motivation. AlSubai et al.’s Qatar cross-sectional study identified age > 22 years, male gender, and clinical year as strongly associated with extensive research participation (33). A larger multicenter study of 2989 students from Egypt, Algeria, Sudan, Jordan, Syria, and Palestine reported poor research knowledge but high positive attitudes (15). A key difference was that > 80% of our population reported sufficient knowledge to participate (among students whose curriculum included a research course), while Assar et al. reported overall poor knowledge regarding research (91.6%). Both studies found that over two-thirds of participants were involved in research (15).

Many students recognized research’s significance for career progression and scientific advancement; however, barriers included a lack of funding, insufficient mentorship, a lack of protected research time, a lack of confidence in research skills, and struggles with concepts and statistical analysis. These findings mirror El Achi et al.’s 2019 cross-sectional study of 523 American University of Beirut students (34). Interestingly, faculty at two major Indian institutions, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and University College of Medical Sciences, also reported barriers, including a lack of financial support, statistical courses, and workshops (35).

A Jordan single-site cross-sectional survey revealed similarly positive attitudes regarding research integration into curricula. A substantial majority disagreed that research was time-wasting, and 88.5% believed research experience would benefit future clinical practice (20). Identified barriers aligned with ours, emphasizing insufficient training, limited opportunities, and inadequate faculty support. Comparable results in the broader MENA region included Orebi et al.’s Tanta University, Egypt study reporting strong student support for embedding structured research training within medical curricula, underscoring consistent regional recognition of research’s value and need to address barriers (36).

Early, structured training plus formal mentorship and protected research time are likely to yield the greatest gains. Medical students perceive research development activities, such as courses, workshops, and conferences, as valuable for academic and professional growth. These opportunities provide practical skills in research design, data analytics, and scientific writing, complementing coursework. Such opportunities help students develop autonomy, competence, and positive research perception in clinical contexts, encouraging research during training (37). This study is even more relevant to the UAE, where the transition to Competency Based Medical Education, demands that research competencies are attained not just theoretically but practically. Moreover, our results reveal critical stage specific needs showing that younger pre-clinical students are primarily CV driven and require basic structured mentorship while older students are more concerned with access to funding and resources to complete advanced projects. These observed differences in motivations and barriers based on age and gender (e.g., males citing funding, females citing mentorship) necessitate a differentiated, formalized mentorship model and the creation of dedicated undergraduate research grant programs to ensure equitable and effective research training that is explicitly linked to the national healthcare vision and the UCFME (8, 9).

Key strengths include this study’s status as a nationwide, multi-site survey among UAE medical students, encompassing respondents from diverse universities, nationalities, and academic backgrounds. Large sample size provides statistical robustness, enhancing validity and generalizability. Given the existing scarcity of comprehensive data on medical students’ research attitudes, perceptions, and barriers in the MENA region, our study fills a critical knowledge gap, laying the groundwork for targeted institutional interventions and educational strategies. Importantly, this study focuses exclusively on medical students, whereas Jarab et al. (26) examined mixed health professions students. This enables a comprehensive analysis of the identification of barriers specific to medical curricula and their training demands. Our multivariate regression analyses identify independent predictors of research attitudes and barriers, including age, institutional factors, prior experience, and academic performance. These findings provide evidence for targeted medical education interventions rather than generalized recommendations across health professions.

When it comes to limitations, first, our methodology relied on a convenience sampling approach through voluntary, non-compulsory participation, which introduces a potential self-selection bias. Students who are already more engaged or interested in research may have been more inclined to complete the survey, potentially inflating the overall reported positive attitude and participation rates. We attempted to mitigate this by engaging multiple medical colleges across the UAE to ensure a diverse, nationally representative sample across various years of study and curriculum structures. Next, the use of a self-administered electronic questionnaire carries the risk of recall bias and social desirability bias, students may have inaccurately reported past activities or provided answers they perceived as socially or academically favorable. However, the anonymous nature of the data collection was implemented specifically to encourage candor and reduce this bias, particularly when responding to sensitive questions about specific skill deficiencies, such as statistics or personal barriers, such as a lack of mentorship. Finally, being cross-sectional, this study captures attitudes and perceptions at a single point in time and cannot establish causality through the research training journey. Future longitudinal studies would be necessary to evaluate the true impact of current medical curricula reforms on research participation.