Research training in plastic surgery

"A Sign of Things to Come: Training Research Output Long-Term Scholarship in Academic Plastic Surgery."

BACKGROUNDS

Academic plastic surgery has utilized different methods to promote early involvement of trainees in research. Further analysis is needed to characterize the effects of this early emphasis and their impact on long-term academic contributions to the field.

METHODS

In October 2020, a cross-sectional study of 949 faculty from US academic plastic surgery programs was conducted using publicly available websites. Training research output for each surgeon was compared to post-training research output and other metrics measuring sustained career scholarship.

RESULTS

Increased training publications (P< 0.0001) and citations (P< 0.0001) were associated with fewer years in practice. 727 surgeons (80.0%) had ≥ 1 research article, and this group proceeded to attain significantly higher mean post-training publications per year (3.04 ± 0.14 vs. 1.45 ± 0.13, P< 0.0001) and citations per year (72.12 ± 5.04 vs. 28.39 ± 3.49, P< 0.0001) compared to the 182 (20.0%) surgeons with no training publications. For individuals, total training publications were positively correlated with post-training publications per year (P< 0.0001), a relationship also observed for citations (P< 0.0001). When controlling for years in practice, increased training publications and/or citations were significantly associated with attaining academic professor track (versus clinical professor track) position, endowed professor status, journal board position, and NIH funding (P< 0.05 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a trend of increasing research productivity during plastic surgery training, and increased training output is predictive of attaining multiple measures of career academic achievement. Academic plastic surgery should continue to underscore research participation as a valuable part of the training process.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors   www.springer.com/00266 .

Graduate medical education scholarly activities initiatives: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

According to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education residents "should participate in scholarly activity." The development of a sustainable, successful resident scholarship program is a difficult task faced by graduate medical education leadership.

METHODS

A medical librarian conducted a systematic literature search for English language articles published on scholarly activities initiatives in Graduate Medical Education (GME) between January 2003 and March 31 2017. Inclusion criteria included implementing a graduate medical education research curriculum or initiative designed to enhance intern, resident, or fellow scholarly activities using a control or comparison group. We defined major outcomes as increases in publications or presentations. Random effects meta-analysis was used to compare the rate of publications before and after implementation of curriculum or initiative.

RESULTS

We identified 32 relevant articles. Twenty-nine (91%) reported on resident publications, with 35% (10/29) reporting statistically significant increases. Fifteen articles (47%) reported on regional, national, or international presentations, with only 13% (2/15) reporting a statistically significant increase in productivity. Nineteen studies were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis; for these studies, the post-initiative publication rate was estimated to be 2.6 times the pre-intervention rate (95% CI: 1.6 to 4.3; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review identified 32 articles describing curricula and initiatives used by GME programs to increase scholarly activity. The three most frequently reported initiatives were mentors (88%), curriculum (59%), and protected time (59%). Although no specific strategy was identified as paramount to improved productivity, meta-analysis revealed that the publication rate was significantly higher following the implementation of an initiative. Thus, we conclude that a culture of emphasis on resident scholarship is the most important step. We call for well-designed research studies with control or comparison groups and a power analysis focused on identifying best practices for future scholarly activities curricula and initiatives.