Medical student research: it is necessary and beneficial!

Exploring the Clinical Usefulness of Undergraduate Medical Research: A Mixed-Methods Study

A significant amount of published clinical research has no measurable impact on health and disease outcomes, and research in undergraduate medical education is viewed as especially susceptible. The aims of this mixed methods study were to (a) to use group concept mapping (GCM) to explore key features identified by hospital physicians, medical educators, and medical students as central to clinical usefulness in an undergraduate medical research context, and (b) review a sample of undergraduate medical research projects based on usefulness criteria described by Ioannidis (2016). In the GCM procedure, 54 respondents (39 students, 15 physicians) from an Irish medical school participated across each of three phases: brainstorming, sorting, and rating. Data was analysed using multidimensional scaling and hierarchical clustering. A retrospective analysis of 252 student projects was also completed using a rubric based on Ioannidis's (2016) six domains of "clinical usefulness": problem base, context placement and information gain, pragmatism, patient-centredness, feasibility, and transparency. Projects were scored for each domain by three assessors. Results were analysed and presented using descriptive analysis.GCM analysis revealed the following "clinically useful" research characteristics: optimal design and methodology, practicality, research skills development, translational impact, patient-centredness, and asking a clinical question. Following a rubric-based analysis of projects, the highest scoring categories (mean rating; range of 1-4) were feasibility (3.57), transparency (3.32), and problem base (3.05). The lowest scoring areas were context placement and information gain (2.73), pragmatism (2.68), and patient-centredness (212). We identified considerable conceptual overlap between stakeholder consensus views on "clinical usefulness" as applied to undergraduate research and Ioannidis's criteria. Patient-centredness was identified as a domain requiring greater emphasis during the design of undergraduate medical research.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-024-02035-7.

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.