Inclination towards research and the pursuit of a research career among medical students: an international cohort study

The impact of a curriculum-based research training program on medical students' research productivity and future research interests: a longitudinal study

BACKGROUND

Incorporating scientific research into undergraduate medical education is necessary for the quality of future health care. However, providing rigorous research training to a large number of medical students at one institution remains one of the major challenges. The authors studied the impact of a curriculum-based Research Training Program (RTP) for all undergraduate students at Zhejiang University School of Medicine (ZUSM) on research productivity and future research interests.

METHODS

Medical students (n = 2,213) from ZUSM who completed the course of RTP between 2013 and 2020 were studied. The authors measured the academic performance, research publications, and research projects of students across years, and evaluated potential factors that contribute to student research productivity and increased interest in future research.

RESULTS

Across the years, there was an increase in the number of student publications, a greater proportion of students with publications, and a greater proportion of projects involving three or more students (P < .01 for all). The academic performance of the course was associated with increased publications (P = .014), whereas overall satisfaction of the course (OR 2.07, 95% CI [1.39, 3.10], P < .001), Skill Composite Score (SCS) (OR 1.70, 95% CI [1.16, 2.50], P = .007), and male gender (OR 1.50, 95% CI [1.06, 2.12], P = .022) were associated with increased future research interests.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that the curriculum-based RTP improved students' research productivity, and that overall program satisfaction and self-assessed performance were associated with increased students' intent to participate in future research.

Residency Program Directors' Views on Research Conducted During Medical School: A National Survey

PURPOSE

With the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 transition to pass/fail in 2022, uncertainty exists regarding how other residency application components, including research conducted during medical school, will inform interview and ranking decisions. The authors explore program director (PD) views on medical student research, the importance of disseminating that work, and the translatable skill set of research participation.

METHOD

Surveys were distributed to all U.S. residency PDs and remained open from August to November 2021 to query the importance of research participation in assessing applicants, whether certain types of research were more valued, productivity measures that reflect meaningful research participation, and traits for which research serves as a proxy. The survey also queried whether research would be more important without a numeric Step 1 score and the importance of research vs other application components.

RESULTS

A total of 885 responses from 393 institutions were received. Ten PDs indicated that research is not considered when reviewing applicants, leaving 875 responses for analysis. Among 873 PDs (2 nonrespondents), 358 (41.0%) replied that meaningful research participation will be more important in offering interviews. A total of 164 of 304 most competitive specialties (53.9%) reported increased research importance compared with 99 of 282 competitive (35.1%) and 95 of 287 least competitive (33.1%) specialties. PDs reported that meaningful research participation demonstrated intellectual curiosity (545 [62.3%]), critical and analytical thinking skills (482 [55.1%]), and self-directed learning skills (455 [52.0%]). PDs from the most competitive specialties were significantly more likely to indicate that they value basic science research vs PDs from the least competitive specialties.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates how PDs value research in their review of applicants, what they perceive research represents in an applicant, and how these views are shifting as the Step 1 exam transitions to pass/fail.

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.

Analysing the Impact of an Elective Research Experience on Medical Students' Research Perceptions

INTRODUCTION

Physicians are at the centre of bench-to-bedside research, yet the number of physicians engaging in research is declining. One solution to overcome this alarming trend is exposing medical students to research. This study aims to assess the impact of engaging medical students in research, and the feasibility of conducting research solely using online communication.

METHODS

A pilot elective research opportunity was offered to medical students enrolled to the University of Malta Doctor of Medicine and Surgery course by a resident academic (summer 2021) of the same institute to assess the epidemiology of COVID-19 in Europe. An anonymous survey was distributed to seventy medical students recruited to participate in this elective research project. The data collected was analysed and interpreted.

RESULTS

A response rate of 88.73% was achieved. "Career progression" and "lack of time" were the most reported motivating and hindering factors towards conducting research, respectively, before engaging in a research experience. Research experience helped overcome reported barriers (p < 0.01), while also challenging students' perceptions towards research. An increase in positive perceptions towards research was observed after conducting research. An overwhelming majority (90.47%) of participants reported that mentorship played an influential role in their overall experience, and 95.24% commented that they would like research opportunities to be made available by their faculty.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Giving students the opportunity to conduct research demonstrated how research experience improves students' soft skills and the understanding of research. This study also portrayed how remote research opportunities are effective in engaging students and increased the number of students who would consider a career in research.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-023-01727-w.

Design and Transition of an Emergency E-Learning Pathology Course for Medical Students-Evaluation of a Novel Course Concept

BACKGROUND

Around the world, the emergency brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic forced medical schools to create numerous e-learning supplements to provide instruction during this crisis. The question now is to determine a way in which to capitalize on this momentum of digitization and harness the medical e-learning content created for the future. We have analyzed the transition of a pathology course to an emergency remote education online course and, in the second step, applied a flipped classroom approach including research skills training.

METHODS

In the summer semester of 2020, the pathology course at the Technical University of Munich was completely converted to an asynchronous online course. Its content was adapted in winter 2021 and incorporated into a flipped classroom concept in which research skills were taught at the same time.

RESULTS

Screencasts and lecture recordings were the most popular asynchronous teaching formats. Students reported developing a higher interest in pathology and research through group work. The amount of content was very challenging for some students.

CONCLUSION

Flipped classroom formats are a viable option when using pre-existing content. We recommend checking such content for technical and didactic quality and optimizing it if necessary. Content on research skills can be combined very well with clinical teaching content.

Are Medical Students Interested in Conducting Research? A Case Study on the Recruitment Outcome of an Elective Research Summer Opportunity

A pilot summer elective research opportunity was made available to medical students at the University of Malta. A call was sent out in June 2021. Interested students sent a short "intention to participate" email to the coordinator which was analysed. One in every twelve enrolled medical students applied. The commonest reason for participation was to gain research experience and knowledge, with a majority expressing no prior experience. Lack of research opportunities may be one of the barriers faced by students, resulting in the poor inclination to conduct research as undergraduates. Identifying specific barriers is recommended in order to provide a tangible research future.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-022-01645-3.

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.

Public Health Student's Attitudes Toward Research

Research is able to improve the lives of big populations by investigating effective interventions and then implementing those through public health policies. Whilst research on the inclination of Medical or Science undergraduate and postgraduate students has been conducted, little is known about what students pursuing a Masters degree in Public Health perceive the purpose of research to be. Their perceptions and inclinations will shape their research pursuits and career directions, which impacts the health outcomes of the community. Our findings suggest MPH students see improving the lives of the community as the most important purpose of research. Student's had more inclination to pursue research when influenced by a mentor however, many students still claimed that they either lacked confidence and skills in completing research or had no intention of pursuing research beyond their degrees, which suggests the need for curriculum adjustments.

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.

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.

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.

Integrating Distance Strategies to Meet the 2020 Summer Research Internship Competencies and Objectives

Knowledge of research skills such as information literacy, critical thinking, ability to ask questions, and evidence-based decisions are necessary for all medical students. They will use these skills for clinical decisions, translate research findings to clinical practice, and educate their patients. Research also plays an essential role in the selection process for many residency programs, and it has only become more critical over time. Therefore, research activities are a central component of medical schools' curriculum throughout the 4 years. One of the research opportunities offered to medical students is their participation in a research summer internship. Nevertheless, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, summer 2020 was impacted by the rapid shut down of academic and research activities to minimize infection. In this article, the authors describe the methodology changes to maintain the summer research internship offering amongst the coronavirus pandemic compared to the previous 6 years (2014-2019). Students answered a survey to assess their insight regarding general aspects of the summer research internship, structure, mentorship, faculty, and research skills development. Overall, students had a positive perception of all the survey areas, especially in mentor performance and research skills development. In conclusion, the authors found 2 critical attitudes toward facing unexpected challenges, such as the impact of COVID-19. These are essential to open new opportunities for the future of medical education research: (1) assuming a fast, encouraging, and constant response from the academic leaders, and (2) facilitating the stakeholders' interest, resilience, and commitment to help and support.