Scholarly Research Projects Benefit Medical Students' Research Productivity and Residency Choice: Outcomes From the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine

"Excited When They See Their Name in Print": Research Outputs from an Australian Medical Program

To promote evidence-based practice, medical schools offer students opportunities to undertake either elective or mandatory research projects. One important measure of the research program success is student publication rates. In 2006, UNSW Medicine implemented a mandatory research program in the 4th year of the undergraduate medical education program. This study identified student publication rates and explored student and supervisor experiences with the publication process. A retrospective audit of student publications from the 2007, 2011, and 2015 cohorts was undertaken to look at trends over time. Data collected included type of publication and study methodology. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a sample of undergraduate students (n = 11), medical graduates (n = 14), and supervisors (n = 25) and analysed thematically. Student publication rates increased significantly (P = 0.002) from 28% in 2007 to 50.2% in 2015. Students able to negotiate their own project were more likely to publish (P = 0.02). Students reported personal affirmation and development of research skills from publishing their research findings, while graduates noted improved career opportunities. Supervisors expected students to publish but identified the time to publications and student motivation as key factors in achieving publication(s). A high publication rate is possible in a mandatory research program where students can negotiate their own topic and are given protected time. Publications happen after the research project has finished. Critical factors in successful publication include supervisor support and student motivation. Given the importance of the supervisor's role, staff development and faculty support to train and develop a body of skilled supervisors is required.

Attitude toward career development in Japanese medical students: a questionnaire survey

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to evaluate attitudes of Japanese medical students toward career development, including the acquisition of medical specialty and doctorate degree qualifications.

DESIGN

This involved a web-based questionnaire survey.

SETTING

We asked medical students about attitudes toward career development after graduation. We also asked them about their intentions to acquire a medical specialty and a doctorate degree using a 5-point Likert scale.

PARTICIPANTS

All 699 medical students (from first to sixth grade) in our medical school.

RESULTS

The overall questionnaire response rate was 66.5% (465 of 699). Over 90.3% (420 of 465) of respondents desired the clinical discipline, while only 10 of 465 respondents (2.2%) did for basic research. Awareness of career development for ≥8 years after graduation was significantly lower compared with that for 1-2 years after graduation among fourth-sixth year students (fourth p=0.0023, fifth p<0.001, sixth p<0.001). Awareness of career development for 3-7 years after graduation was significantly lower compared with that for 1-2 years after graduation among third-sixth year students (third p<0.001, fourth p=0.003, fifth p<0.001, sixth p<0.001). In the sixth year medical students, only 10.3% showed strong awareness of career development for ≥8 years after graduation, while 39.7% of them did for 1-2 years after graduation. Intentions to acquire a doctorate degree were significantly weaker than those for a medical specialty in all years (p<0.001 in all grades).

CONCLUSION

Most Japanese medical students concentrated on the 2-year initial training period immediately after graduation, with vague plans for the subsequent years. Intentions to acquire a doctoral degree were significantly lower than those for a medical specialty. Our findings underscore the necessity for a comprehensive, longitudinal and systematic career development programme.

Predictors of Matching into Anesthesiology and Surgery: Analysis of One Program's Results

PURPOSE

The objectives of this study were to use a multivariable regression model to determine what application factors made anesthesiology and surgery applicants more or less likely to match into an anesthesiology or surgery residency program.

METHODS

Surgery and Anesthesiology applicants listed on the final National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) Rank Order Lists from WMC in the 2020-2021 application cycle were included in analysis. All applicant data were collected through the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS). All ERAS and letters of recommendation (LOR) data were deidentified and LOR were subsequently inputted into a linguistics software to analyze the language use in LOR. Descriptive analyses were conducted to compare variables between applicants that matched to a specific residency program and those who matched elsewhere. A multivariable regression model was then used to determine characteristics of anesthesiology and surgery applicants that were indicative of matching to a specific rank of residency program.

RESULTS

A total of 116 anesthesiology and 78 surgery applicants were included in final analysis. Analysis of anesthesiology applicants yielded four significant application characteristics that influenced matching to a higher or lower ranked residency program: USMLE Step 2 CK scores, medical school attended, insight category words in LOR, and anger category words in LOR. Similarly, analysis of surgery applicants yielded four significant characteristics: Race, USMLE Step 1 scores, insight category words, and see category words.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrated that specialties of anesthesiology and surgery considered different metrics regarding the residency application process. Among the many factors that were analyzed, USMLE scores and language in LOR were considered significant in both specialties. As the application process continues to evolve, we may see a shift in what application factors are considered more important than others.

Predictive value of medical school ranking in the academic scholarship of ophthalmology residents

Objective

To determine whether a resident's medical school ranking predicts their scholarship during residency.

Design

The authors stratified ophthalmology residents in ACGME accredited programs into tiers based off their medical school background's US News & World Report ranking: T1 (schools 1-20), T2 (21-50), and T3 (51-90). Investigators queried PubMed and Scopus for number of total publications, first/second author publications, publications in the top 10 impact factor journals in ophthalmology, and publications with the senior author affiliated with the resident's residency program/medical school. Authors collected data from start of ophthalmology residency to December 5th, 2021, and performed Pearson chi squared, ANOVA, Eta squared, Tukey, and multivariable logistic regression tests.

Results

1054 residents were included for analysis, with 370 from T1 schools, 296 from T2 schools, and 388 from T3 schools. T3 residents had a significantly decreased likelihood of publishing at least one (OR = 0.659;95%CI = 0.481,0.905;p = .010), two (OR = 0.643;95%CI = 0.436,0.949;p = .026), or five (OR = 0.407;95%CI = 0.187,0.886;p = .024) total publications compared to T1 residents. T3 residents also were partially predicted to publish fewer first author works, high impact journal articles, and articles with senior authors affiliated with their medical school. T2 residents were more likely to publish at least one second author work than T1 residents (OR = 1.604;95%CI = 1.101,2.337;p = .014). There was no significant difference between tiers in publications with senior authors affiliated with the same residency program.

Conclusions

The authors observed little difference in scholarship between residents from T1 and T2 schools, but some differences may exist between T3 and T1/T2 residents. Merit of rankings should be further explored.

The Importance of Research Experience With a Scoreless Step 1: A Student Survey at a Community-Based Medical School

PURPOSE

As of January 26, 2022, the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USLME) step 1 exam went from a scored test to pass-fail step 1 (PFS1). The authors were interested in surveying medical students at a community-based medical school to observe their perceptions of the importance of student research given this recent change.

METHOD

A Qualtrics survey was disseminated to medical students (years 1-4) via school emails. Data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney test to assess Likert scale scores, and narrative comments were grouped as qualitative feedback. Survey dissemination and analysis of data were both conducted at a large community-based medical school.

RESULTS

The survey sampled 104 students categorized into pre-clerkship (PC) and clerkship (CL) years, with a response rate of 33%. A contradiction was found, as indicated by the higher number (p = 0.047) of clerkship students interested in Primary Care/Family medicine residency compared to pre-clerkship students at 41% and 59%, respectively. Whereas participants who indicated they are interested in pursuing a competitive specialty for residency were 51% of pre-clerkship students over 41% of clerkship students (p = 0.047). Additionally, given the assessment change to pass/fail, students did in fact believe that residencies would now view research as a higher assessed component than before (79% pre-clerkship and 72% clerkship). However, a minority of students said that they increased their research efforts (41% and 47%). Most students supported the research opportunity improvements proposed in our survey.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts to make the step 1 exam pass/fail may have alleviated some stress related to performance but may have increased the perception of the importance of other components in a student's residency application. Our survey highlights how medical students at a community-based medical school perceive this change and how it has affected their research efforts.

Increasing Medical Student Involvement in Research: Military Ob/Gyn HeadHunters

INTRODUCTION

Our goal was to develop a successful research collaboration program, Military Ob/Gyn HeadHunters, to connect military medical students with residents, fellows, and staff physicians across the Military Health System (MHS) to foster research collaboration and mentorship.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a needs assessment of medical students from the Uniformed Services University and Health Professions Scholarship Program as well as staff physicians, residents, and fellows practicing in the MHS to better understand the barriers to initiating and conducting research within the MHS. We used the survey results to create a secure online spreadsheet to match medical students to researchers recruiting student researchers. A follow-up survey was sent to all respondents 3 months after the program launch to evaluate the program.

RESULTS

Of the medical students who completed the needs assessment, 82.56% (n = 71/86) reported barriers in participating in research. The most common barrier was "I don't know where to look for research opportunities." Of the staff surveyed, 88.24% (n = 15/17) indicated that they were interested in medical student involvement in their research. However, 53.33% (n = 8/15) of the surveyed staff reported that they did not know any students who would be good candidates. Since the launch in April 2021, our 3-month follow-up survey had a response rate of 40.00% (n = 6/15) for staff and 47.06% (n = 32/68) for students. Hundred percent (n = 6/6) of faculty advertising projects recruited at least one student to join their project. 85.71% (n = 12/14) of students actively seeking participation joined a research team.

CONCLUSIONS

Our novel research collaboration program successfully connected military medical students with active researchers in the MHS. Leaders in medical education can consider adopting this framework to improve trainee participation in research.

Gender Disparity in Earliest Phase of Academic Surgical Training: An Area for Intervention

BACKGROUND

To overcome persistent gender disparities in academic surgery, it is critical to examine the earliest phase of surgical training. This national study sought to assess whether gender disparities also existed among surgical interns, as a proxy for medical school research experience in both quantity and quality.

STUDY DESIGN

Using the 2021 to 2022 public information of 1,493 US-graduated categorical general surgery interns, a bibliometric evaluation was conducted to assess medical school research experience. Multivariable linear regressions with response log-transformed were performed to evaluate the impact of intern gender on (1) total number of peer-reviewed publications, (2) total impact factor (TIF), and (3) adjusted TIF based on authorship placement (aTIF). Back-transformed estimates were presented.

RESULTS

Of these interns, 52.3% were female. Significant differences were observed in TIF (male 6.4 vs female 5.3, p = 0.029), aTIF (male 10.8 vs female 8.7, p = 0.035), gender concordance with senior authors (male 79.9% vs female 34.1%, p < 0.001), Hirsch index (male 21.0 vs female 18.0, p = 0.026), and the geographic region of their medical schools (p = 0.036). Multivariable linear regressions revealed that female interns were associated with lower TIF (0.858, p = 0.033) and aTIF (0.851, p = 0.044). Due to a significant gender-by-region interaction, adjusted pairwise comparisons showed that male interns in the Northeast had approximately 70% higher TIF (1.708, p = 0.003) and aTIF (1.697, p = 0.013) than female interns in the South.

CONCLUSIONS

Gender disparities existed in the quality of research experience in the earliest phase of surgical training. These timely results call for additional interventions by the stakeholders of graduate medical education.

Longitudinal Outcomes of Medical Student Research Mentorship: a 15-Year Analysis of the Radiation Oncology Mentorship Initiative

At our institution, students can be mentored by radiation oncology faculty through structured research programs, such as the Medical Student Summer Research Program (MSSRP). The purpose of this study is to report the research productivity of students who engaged in radiation oncology research mentorship, whether through the MSSRP or other avenues of research mentorship. We compiled a database of abstracts and manuscripts co-authored by 58 students who conducted research with radiation oncology faculty from 2005 to 2020. The means, medians, ranges, and interquartile ranges (IQR) of co-authorships and first authorships were calculated for the overall cohort and compared for MSSRP and non-MSSRP students, who matched into radiation oncology and those who did not, and male versus female students. Among all 58 students, 106 abstracts and 70 manuscripts were identified. Of those students, 54 (93.1%) published at least one abstract or manuscript. The mean number of abstract co-authorships per student was 3.07 (median 2, range 0-25, IQR 0-4), and the mean number of manuscript co-authorships per student was 2.22 (median 1, range 0-18, IQR 1-3). There were no significant differences in research output between MSSRP and non-MSSRP students or male and female students. However, the students who matched into radiation oncology published more co-author (3.67 vs. 1.63, p = 0.01) and first-author (1.62 vs. 0.53, p = 0.006) manuscripts than those who did not. Further research is warranted to assess whether skills gained from student-directed research translate into residency and beyond.

Analysis of Research Productivity and Assessment of Geographical Region in the General Surgery Match: How Much is Enough?

OBJECTIVES

The number of publications of prospective surgical residents has steadily increased over the past decade as the emphasis on research output has become paramount. However, the reported data from the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) does not discriminate amongst impact, author position, and region of matched residents. This study aimed to evaluate categorical general surgery postgraduate year 1 (PGY-1) residents' research productivity by programs' research impact and region of the United States and support the need for additional public data on research metrics of accepted applicants. We hypothesize that residents accepted to top quartile schools will have more total and first author publications and higher h-index compared to residents in the other quartiles, and research metrics would not differ amongst the regions.

DESIGN

The Doximity Residency Navigator was used to sort general surgery programs based on research output, which was determined by the average h-index of residents. All 2021 matriculating PGY-1 categorical residents from the top two programs from each region and quartile that met study criteria were included in the analysis. Web of Science (WoS) citation database was used to collect prior to residency and current total publications, and the first, last, and corresponding author positions of these publications. Residents' h-index and various research metrics reported by WoS were recorded. Descriptive statistics were used to examine the association between quartile and region.

SETTING

Categorical general surgery residency programs throughout the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Categorical PGY-1 general surgery residents.

RESULTS

The median total number of publications prior to residency was 1 (IQR = 0-5). The median total number of first-author publications prior to residency was 0 (IQR = 0-1), and the current h-index was 0 (IQR = 0-2). The top quartile had more total and first author publications prior to residency, while the other quartiles had similar metrics. Each region had similar total publications and h-index.

CONCLUSIONS

Research output is significant for applicants applying to top-quartile research programs compared to the other 3 quartiles and is relatively similar throughout all regions of the United States. Public data is limited to future applicants.

Retrospective study of medical student scholarship and career trajectory following a mentored preclinical cardiovascular summer research fellowship

OBJECTIVES

Developing a preclinical training infrastructure for cardiovascular clinician-scientists is an academic workforce priority. The Cardiovascular Research Institute of Vermont developed a cardiovascular summer research fellowship (SRF), wherein medical student awardees were selected by merit-based application and completed mentored research between the first and second years. We aimed to study the impact of the SRF on medical student scholarship and career planning.

DESIGN

Retrospective survey study.

SETTING

Single academic medical centre.

PARTICIPANTS

All SRF participants from 2015 to 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Prior SRF participants were surveyed to ascertain current position, research engagement and perspectives regarding SRF experience. Comparisons to American Association of Medical Colleges Graduation Questionnaire data from equivalent years were made using χ² tests.

RESULTS

Survey response rate was 87% (20/23), 55% were women. Median time from SRF completion was 2 years (IQR 0.75-2.25), with 75% still enrolled in medical school and 25% in residency. As a result of the first-year summer programme, 45% published a peer-reviewed abstract or manuscript, which was equivalent to the national rate for graduating students (53%, p=0.4). Most respondents (80%) were active in additional research projects during school separate from the SRF, 90% anticipated a career involving research (vs 53% nationally, p<0.001) and 75% planned to pursue a career in cardiovascular medicine.

CONCLUSION

Medical students completing a mentored cardiovascular SRF after their first year have a high rate of academic scholarship, with publication rate already equivalent to national peer graduates. Preclinical SRF students strongly anticipate cardiovascular medicine and research careers.

Are resident research projects correlated to future subspecialty choice in orthopaedic surgery? A ten-year retrospective review of a single centre's experience

AIM

To determine (1) frequency of resident research projects being in the same orthopaedic subspecialty that they ultimately choose for fellowship and practice; (2) percentage of research projects that were published.

METHODS

Resident Thesis Day programs were independently assessed by two reviewers from 2010 to 2020. Reviewers classified projects based on orthopaedic subspecialty: Spine, Joints, Trauma, Hand, Foot and Ankle, Sports, Pediatrics, Oncology, and Shoulder Elbow. Presenting residents' fellowship subspecialty, current practice specialty, and geographic state of current practice were collected using internet searches. Correlation of residents who completed a thesis day project in the same subspecialty as their fellowship and current practice was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 81 resident physicians, 11 (13.6%) female, were included. In the entire cohort, 50.6% did a thesis day project in a different field than their current or projected subspecialty. Of those who completed, or are currently completing fellowship, 33 (52.4%) did their thesis day project in the same subspecialty as their fellowship. Of the current residents who have matched into fellowship, 46.7% did a thesis day project in the same subspecialty. A total of 51 (63.0%) projects were published.

CONCLUSION

The majority of resident research projects were published, and about 50% of orthopaedic residents went on to complete a fellowship and practice in the same subspecialty as their research project. As residents often spend a considerable amount of time and effort on their projects, these findings may help tailor resident education and research curriculums to focus more on research principles than specific orthopedic content.

Assessing publication rates from medical students' mandatory research projects in the Netherlands: a follow-up study of 10 cohorts of medical students

OBJECTIVES

The medical field is facing a clinician-scientist shortage. Medical schools could foster the clinician-scientist workforce by offering students research opportunities. Most medical schools offer elective research programmes. Subsequently, a subset of doctors graduates without any research experience. Mandatory research projects may be more sufficient to develop clinician-scientist, but take more supervision and curricular time. There is limited insight in the scientific outcomes of mandatory research experiences. This study aims to examine publication rates of a mandatory research experience, identify factors associated with publication, and includes postgraduate research engagement.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Prospective follow-up study involving 10 cohorts of medical students' mandatory research projects from Leiden University Medical Center.

PARTICIPANTS

All medical students who conducted their research project between 2008 and 2018 (n=2329) were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Publication rates were defined as peer-reviewed scientific publications, including research papers, reviews, and published meeting abstracts. Postgraduate research engagement was defined as research participation and dissemination of research at scientific conferences or in journals.

RESULTS

In total, 644 (27.7%) of all mandatory research experiences resulted in publication, with students mainly as first (n=984, 42.5%) or second author (n=587, 25.3%) and above world average citation impact (mean normalised journal score 1.29, mean normalised citation score 1.23). Students who conducted their research in an academic centre (adjusted OR 2.82; 95% CI 2.10 to 3.77), extended their research (adjusted OR 1.73; 95% CI 1.35 to 2.20), were involved in an excellency track (adjusted OR 2.08; 95% CI 1.44 to 3.01), or conducted clinical (adjusted OR 2.08; 95% CI 1.15 to 3.74) or laboratory (adjusted OR 2.16; 95% CI 1.16 to 4.01) research published their research more often. Later as junior doctors, this group significantly more often disseminate their research results at scientific conferences (adjusted OR 1.89; 95% CI 1.11 to 3.23) or in journals (adjusted OR 1.98; 95% CI 1.14 to 3.43).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that a significant subset of hands-on mandatory research projects with flexible learning pathways result in tangible research output with proper impact and that such successful experiences can be considered as diving board towards a research-oriented career.

Research Education in Medical Curricula: a Global Analysis

BACKGROUND

Research is a key component of medical practice, with involvement of medical students crucial for the future of healthcare. A major limitation for medical students is the lack of exposure to research education and projects. The purpose of this study was to analyse the exposure of medical students worldwide to research education and opportunities and their satisfaction with research in their curriculum and compare results between regions.

METHODS

The International Federation of Medical Students Associations (IFMSA), through its Research Standing Committee, developed a questionnaire to understand the current situation worldwide regarding medical students' access to research and research education in the medical curriculum. Students from all years from across the five regions of the IFMSA were eligible.

RESULTS

A total of 619 responses representing 290 universities and 88 countries were received. Although 97.6% of medical students believed that research should be approached in their education, only 19.6% considered it was sufficiently addressed. Regarding education, only 36% of all respondents reported having specific mandatory research courses, with higher percentages in the Asia-Pacific and European countries. Even though an association between research opportunities and research participation was found, only 30% of students reported having specific places in research teams. Lastly, 39.3% had never participated in a research project.

CONCLUSION

Research education is a vital component of medical education, and medical students consider its inclusion as essential for their education. However, not enough emphasis on research education is placed across the globe, with most students seeking research opportunities to train themselves outside the formal curriculum.

The impact of medical student research as a discussion topic during the residency interview process

BACKGROUND

Students with a greater number of research experiences are more successful in the National Residency Match Program (NRMP.) As a result, approximately two-thirds of allopathic medical schools have implemented a scholarly research project (SP) as a part of their curriculum. While inclusion of an SP in the medical school curriculum increases research productivity, literature to date has not investigated the frequency with which it is a discussion topic during residency interviews.

METHODS

One hundred twenty-three students from the graduating class of 2019 and 2020 at the University of Arizona College of Medicine - Phoenix (UACOMP) completed a 17-question survey examining the student's SP and whether they completed additional research, with an overall response rate of 82.6%. Survey participants were asked to quantify how many residency interviewers asked about their SP or additional research during the interview process.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven percent of interviewers asked students about their SP and 41% of interviewers asked students about additional non-SP research. 40% of interviewers asked about research overall to include SP and/or non-SP research. A greater percentage of interviewers (50%) asked students about their SP if they had undertaken additional research compared to interviewers of students who did not undertake additional research (29%, p = 0.0237). A greater percentage of interviewers at academic institutions (31%) asked students about their SP, compared with a smaller percentage of interviewers at predominantly non-academic programs (22%, p = 0.0054). There were no significant differences in the proportion of interviewers asking about the SP based on the type of specialty, competitiveness of specialty, relatedness project topic to specialty, and publication/presentation status of project.

CONCLUSION

Student research experiences may serve as a frequent discussion topic during the residency interview. Approximately one-quarter of interviewers ask about the SP regardless of specialty, research topic, and publication/presentation status of the project. Students with additional research experiences beyond their SP may experience a higher percentage of interviewers asking about their SP. Also, students applying to predominantly academic programs may experience a higher proportion of interview questions about research compared to peers interviewing at non-academic programs.

Faculty perceptions of factors that indicate successful educational outcomes of medical students' research projects: a focus group study

BACKGROUND

A growing number of medical schools have individual scholarly projects as a component of their curricula. The fact that all students, and not only those with research interests, have to carry out a project puts high demands on the projects and their supervision. Evidence is lacking for how to produce scholarly projects with satisfactory outcomes. This study aimed to explore the observations of faculty teachers regarding factors that predict the educational outcomes of medical students' scholarly projects.

METHODS

Two focus group interviews were held with seven of the 16 faculty coordinators who were external reviewers of students' research projects. The audio-recorded interview transcripts were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. We employed a constant comparative approach to create categories firmly grounded in the participants' experiences. A successful project was defined as coordinators' perception that the stated learning outcomes were achieved, in terms of students' ability to demonstrate a scientific attitude.

RESULTS

Five categories emerged from the data: Supervision, Project setup, Student characteristics, Curriculum structure, and Institutional guidance. The supervisors' experience and availability to students were mentioned as key factors for successful outcomes. Further, a clear aim and adaptation to the time frame were stated to be project-related factors that were also supervisors' responsibilities. Important student-related factors were skills related to scientific writing, taking ownership of and managing the projects, and making use of feedback. Finally, the course requirements, support, and control accomplished by faculty coordinators played important roles.

CONCLUSIONS

Contributing factors to achievement of the learning outcomes were supervisors' commitment and experience, and the projects being suitable for the time frame and having a clearly stated research question. Furthermore, the students' prowess at scientific writing, adequate handling of feedback, and ability to assume ownership of the project contributed to the final outcome, as did adherence to curricular instructions.

Factors Determining Medical Students' Experience in an Independent Research Year During the Medical Program

BACKGROUND

There is ongoing debate about best practice models to support active learning by encouraging medical students to conduct independent research projects. This study explored student satisfaction, experiences, and learning outcomes of a unique, mandatory research program in an Australian medical school.

METHODS

Students were invited to complete an anonymous survey ranking statements using Likert scales and completing open-ended questions. Factors predicting student satisfaction with the research year were analysed using a generalised linear regression model. A content analysis of open-ended questions was conducted.

RESULTS

The survey was completed in October 2019 by 117 of 252 students (46%). The majority (84%) reported satisfaction with the research year. Factors associated with satisfaction were research skills learnt (OR 2.782, 95% CI 1.428-5.421; p < 0.003), supervision and support (OR = 2.587, 95% CI 1.237-5.413; p < 0.012), and meaningfulness and experience (OR = 2.506, 95% CI 1.100-5.708; p < 0.029). Qualitative results confirmed support from the faculty and supervisors, perceiving their research as meaningful, and the opportunity to learn research skills were highly regarded by students.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has shown that learning outcomes for basic research skills and high satisfaction rates can be achieved in a mandatory undergraduate research programme when students have dedicated time for their research, opportunities to negotiate their own project, and good support from faculty and mentors.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-021-01340-9.

Impact of A Required, Longitudinal Scholarly Project in Medical School: A Content Analysis of Medical Students' Reflections

INTRODUCTION

Medical schools increasingly require students to complete scholarly projects. Scholarly project programs that are required and longitudinal require considerable resources to implement. It is necessary to understand medical students' perspectives on the impact of such programs. Students at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine participate in a required, longitudinal research program (LRP) throughout all years of medical school training. Authors studied students' perceptions of this program.

METHODS

Fourth-year medical students submit a written report in which they reflect on their experience with the LRP. Qualitative analysis of students' written reflections was performed on 120 reports submitted 2012-2017. Content analysis was performed using an inductive approach in which investigators coded information and searched for emerging themes.

RESULTS

Four themes were identified. First, students described engaging in many steps of the research process, with many participating in projects from conception to completion. Second, students reported the LRP provided opportunities for leadership and independence, and many found this to be meaningful. Third, students developed appreciation for the difficulty of the research process through challenges encountered and practiced problem solving. Fourth, students acquired skills useful across multiple career paths, including critical appraisal of scientific literature, teamwork, and communication.

DISCUSSION

Through participation in a required, longitudinal research program, medical students reported gaining valuable skills in leadership, problem solving, critical thinking, and communication. Students found that the longitudinal nature of the program enabled meaningful research experiences. These educational impacts may be worth the effort of implementing and maintaining longitudinal research experiences for medical students.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-021-01319-6.

Effect of Medical Student Contributions on Academic Productivity: Analysis of Student Authorship Over Time

INTRODUCTION

Understanding the trend of student authorship is crucial in determining its correlation to scholarly impact for corresponding authors. Our objective is to investigate student authorship rates over time in articles published in JAMA Internal Medicine (IM), as well as to examine potential effects student authors have on scholarly impact scores of corresponding authors via H-index measures.

METHODS

Authorship data including student authors (SA), first student authors, and corresponding authors (CA) from prior JAMA IM publications between 2010 and 2018 were collected, with a total of 701 studies. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and independent sample t-tests were performed to assess for differences in the mean by publishing year and student authorship, respectively.

RESULTS

Of 4591 total authors, 683 (14.9%) were considered student authors. The percentage of student authorship increased from 46.3% to 58.0% between 2010 and 2018, respectively. No difference in average H-indices of CA between SA and non-SA groups (overall NSA H_i mean: 30.2, vs SA H_i mean: 32.1, p=0.371) was noted.

DISCUSSION

Student participation in research is not a disadvantage to scholarly impact for corresponding authors. Increased student authorship reflects a promising trend towards greater student participation in research within the field of medicine.

Bibliometric Analysis of the English Musculoskeletal Literature over the Last 30 Years

Publication and authorship are important in academia for career advancement, obtaining grants, and improved patient care. There has been a recent interest in bibliometric changes over time, especially regarding the gender gap. The purpose of this study was to explore bibliometric changes in the musculoskeletal literature. Bibliometric variables (number of authors, institutions, countries, pages, references, corresponding author position, author gender, geographic region of origin, and editorial board makeup) were analyzed for 5 basic science and 12 clinically oriented musculoskeletal journals from 1985 through 2016. Statistical analyses comprised bivariate analyses, multifactorial ANOVAs, and logistic regression analyses. A p < 0.005 was considered significant. Nearly, all variables increased over time. Asia had the highest number of authors and corresponding author positions, Australia/New Zealand the highest number of institutions and references, North America the highest number of pages, and Europe the highest number of countries. Those with a female first author had more authors, institutions, countries, references, and pages. Likewise, those with a female corresponding author had more authors, institutions, countries, references, and pages. Single-authored manuscripts decreased over time. The percentage of female first authors rose from 10.8% in 1985-1987 to 23.7% in 2015-2016. There were more female 1^st authors in the basic science journals compared to the clinical journals (33.2% vs. 12.7%). Single-authored manuscripts were more likely to be written by males (5.1 vs. 2.4%) and decreased over time. The many differences by geographic region of origin likely reflect different socio/cultural attitudes regarding academia and research, as well as the gender composition of the disciplines by geographic region. Overall, there has been an increase in the number of female 1^st and corresponding authors, editorial board members, and chief editors, indicating a slow but progressive narrowing of the gender gap.

Career Research Productivity Correlates With Medical School Ranking Among Cardiothoracic Surgeons

BACKGROUND

The foundation for a successful academic surgical career begins in medical school. We examined whether attending a top-ranked medical school is correlated with enhanced research productivity and faster career advancement among academic cardiothoracic (CT) surgeons.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Research profiles and professional histories were obtained from publicly available sources for all CT surgery faculty at accredited US CT surgery teaching hospitals in 2018 (n = 992). We focused on surgeons who completed medical school in the United States during or after 1990, the first-year US News & World Report released its annual medical school research rankings (n = 451). Subanalyses focused on surgeons who completed a research fellowship (n = 299) and those who did not (n = 152).

RESULTS

A total of 124 surgeons (27.5%) attended a US News & World Report top 10 medical school, whereas 327 (72.5%) did not. Surgeons who studied at a top 10 medical school published more articles per year as an attending surgeon (3.2 versus 1.9; P < 0.0001), leading to more total publications (51.5 versus 27.0; P < 0.0001) and a higher H-index (16.0 versus 11.0; P < 0.0001) over a similar career duration (11.0 versus 10.0 y; P = 0.1294). These differences in career-long research productivity were statistically significant regardless of whether the surgeons completed a research fellowship or not. The surgeons in both groups, however, required a similar number of years to reach associate professor rank (P = 0.6993) and full professor rank (P = 0.7811) after starting their first attending job.

CONCLUSIONS

Attending a top-ranked medical school is associated with enhanced future research productivity but not with faster career advancement in academic CT surgery.

Rapid exponential increase in neurosurgery departmental scholarly output following an intensive research initiative

There has been extensive research into methods of increasing academic departmental scholarly activity (DSA) through targeted interventions. Residency programmes are responsible for ensuring sufficient scholarly opportunities for residents. We sought to discover the outcomes of an intensive research initiative (IRI) on DSA in our department in a short-time interval. IRI was implemented, consisting of multiple interventions, to rapidly produce an increase in DSA through resident/medical student faculty engagement. We compare pre-IRI (8 years) and post-IRI (2 years) research products (RP), defined as the sum of oral presentations and publications, to evaluate the IRI. The study was performed in 2020. The IRI resulted in an exponential increase in DSA with an annual RP increase of 350% from 2017 (3 RP) to 2018 (14 RP), with another 92% from 2018 (14 RP) to 2019 (27 RP). RP/year exponentially increased from 2.1/year to 10.5/year for residents and 0.5/year to 10/year for medical students, resulting in a 400% and 1900% increase in RP/year, respectively. The common methods in literature to increase DSA included instituting protected research time (23.8%) and research curriculum (21.5%). We share our department's increase in DSA over a short 2-year period after implementing our IRI. Our goal in reporting our experience is to provide an example for departments that need to rapidly increase their DSA. By reporting the shortest time interval to achieve exponential DSA growth, we hope this example can support programmes in petitioning hospitals and medical colleges for academic support resources.

Do Year-Out Programs Make Medical Students More Competitive Candidates for Orthopedic Surgery Residencies?

OBJECTIVE

As orthopedic surgery residency programs are becoming more competitive, medical students interested in orthopedics are increasingly completing "year-out" programs. This study sought to evaluate student and faculty perceptions of these programs.

DESIGN

A survey evaluating baseline characteristics was disseminated to directors of year-out programs identified through postings on the orthopedics forum, Orthogate.org. A second survey was sent to all program directors (PDs) of accredited US orthopedic residencies, while a final survey was distributed to participants identified by year-out PDs.

SETTING

Ninety-six orthopedic year-out programs at 56 institutions were contacted.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-six year-out programs, 72 PDs of ACGME-accredited orthopedic residencies, and 34 year-out participants from 6 programs completed our questionnaires.

RESULTS

73.1% (19) year-out program provided funding to participants, averaging $30,368. 84.6% (22) reported >75% match rates into orthopedics for participants. 65.4% (17) of programs selected students between their MS3/MS4 school years. 4.2% (3) of residency PDs agreed or strongly agreed that year-out programs were important factors for consideration in residency programs, compared with 82.4% (28) of year-out participants and 69.2% (18) of year-out PDs (p < 0.001). 58.8% (2) of year-out participants cited completion of a year-out for improving the chance of matching into any orthopedic residency, while 85.3% (29) wanted to be more competitive for top programs. The average Step 1 score was 248, which was insignificantly different from the national average for matched orthopedic applicants.

CONCLUSIONS

Orthopedic year-out programs have dramatically increased in number over the last 20 years. Most of these programs are funded, 1-year clinical research fellowships with relative match success for participants pursuing orthopedic residencies. While year-out PDs and students consider participation in such programs to be an important factor for residency applications, and often participate in them in order to improve their competitiveness for matching at desired programs, residency PDs overall hold different views.

Creating the Next Generation of Evidence-Based Veterinary Practitioners and Researchers: What are the Options for Globally Diverse Veterinary Curricula?

Veterinary educators strive to prepare graduates for a variety of career options with the skills and knowledge to use and contribute to research as part of their lifelong practice of evidence-based veterinary medicine (EBVM). In the veterinary curriculum, students should receive a grounding in research and EBVM, as well as have the opportunity to consider research as a career. Seeing a lack of a cohesive body of information that identified the options and the challenges inherent to embedding such training in veterinary curricula, an international group was formed with the goal of synthesizing evidence to help curriculum designers, course leaders, and teachers implement educational approaches that will inspire future researchers and produce evidence-based practitioners. This article presents a literature review of the rationale, issues, and options for research and EBVM in veterinary curricula. Additionally, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 key stakeholders across the eight Council for International Veterinary Medical Education (CIVME) regions. Emergent themes from the literature and interviews for including research and EBVM skills into the curriculum included societal need, career development, and skills important to clinical professional life. Approaches included compulsory as well as optional learning opportunities. Barriers to incorporating these skills into the curriculum were grouped into student and faculty-/staff-related issues, time constraints in the curriculum, and financial barriers. Having motivated faculty and contextualizing the teaching were considered important to engage students. The information has been summarized in an online "toolbox" that is freely available for educators to inform curriculum development.

The Highly Structured Physician Scientist Training Program (PSTP) for Medical Students at the University of Pittsburgh

The University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Physician Scientist Training Program (PSTP) is a 5-year medical student training program designed to prepare the next generation of MD-only physician-scientists engaging in preclinical research. This article provides an overview of the program, including the novel longitudinal structure and competency goals, which facilitate success and persistence in a laboratory-based physician-scientist career. The authors present data on 81 medical students accepted to the program from academic year 2007-2008 through 2018-2019. Extrinsic outcomes, such as publications, grant funding, and residency matching, indicate that PSTP trainees have actively generated research deliverables. A majority of eligible PSTP trainees have earned Howard Hughes Medical Institute Medical Research Fellow funding. PSTP students have produced a mean of 1.6 first-authored publications (median, 1.0) and a mean of 5.1 total publications (median, 4.0) while in medical school and have authored 0.9 publications per year as residents/fellows, excluding internship. Nearly 60% of PSTP students (26/46) have matched to top-10 National Institutes of Health-funded residency programs in their specialty (based on Blue Ridge Institute rankings). PSTP alumni are twice as likely as their classmates to match into research-heavy departments and to publish first-authored papers. Results of a 2018 program evaluation survey indicate that intrinsic outcomes, such as confidence in research skills, significantly correlate with extrinsic outcomes. The program continues to evolve to maximize both scientific agency and career navigation skills in participants. This medical student PSTP model has potential to expand the pool of physician-scientist researchers in preclinical research beyond the capacity of dedicated MD-PhD and postgraduate training programs.

The Rehabilitation Research Experience for Medical Students: A 10-Year Review

The aim of this project was to evaluate the 10-yr outcomes from the Rehabilitation Research Experience for Medical Students. A target benchmark was one high-quality output per student. Students were required to devise a research project and work full time with a mentor at an approved sponsor site for 8 wks. Longitudinal surveys were used to collect data about research outputs, match results, and decisions about whether to pursue academic careers. From 2008 to 2017, 73 (48%) of 153 applicants were awarded summer externships. Residency match results included the following: physical medicine and rehabilitation (45%), internal medicine (17%), emergency medicine (8%), orthopedic surgery (6%), neurology (6%), psychiatry (6%), OBGYN (6%), pediatrics (4%), and anesthesia (2%). The Rehabilitation Research Experience for Medical Students was successful in exceeding the target benchmark for quality scholarly output, which included 73 oral presentations at the Association of Academic Physiatrists meeting, 63 published and 20 in-review articles directly related to summer research, 5 book chapters, and 51 published and 20 in-review articles that were indirectly related to summer research. A total of 77% reported that the Rehabilitation Research Experience for Medical Students positively influenced their decision to pursue research in their future career, and 70% endorsed interest in becoming a clinician scientist.

Outcomes from an elective medical student Research Scholarly Concentration program

To examine how to increase research career outcomes among medical graduates, we analyzed the impact of the Research Scholarly Concentration at The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences. Residency placement, subsequent scholarship, and career outcomes were compared among 670 graduates who participated in the elective Clinical and Translational Research Scholarly Concentration or no Concentration between 2009 and 2018. We conducted a retrospective study of residency match (highly selective vs less selective), job type (academic vs non-academic), and postmedical school publications (any vs none). We compared the outcomes between Research Scholarly Concentration graduates and those with no Concentration, matched by graduation year (n=335). For Research Scholarly Concentration graduates, we examined the association between research outcomes and duration of research experience before medical school (n=232). Research Scholarly Concentration graduates were more likely to place in a highly selective residency (40.2% vs 21.6%, p<0.0001), 68% more likely to publish after medical school (OR=1.68, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.58), and almost four times as likely to have taken an academic health center job (OR=3.82, 95% CI 1.72 to 8.46) than graduates with no Concentration. Surprisingly, the length of research experience before medical school was not associated with these outcomes among Research Scholarly Concentration graduates. This suggests that a medical school Research Scholarly Concentration is effective in training physician researchers and should be available to both novices and research-experienced matriculants. These data suggest how other medical schools might plan Scholarly Concentration programs to improve research outcomes among medical graduates.