Dataset Information

A dedicated scholarly research program in an adult and pediatric neurology residency program.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To describe and assess the effectiveness of a formal scholarly activity program for a highly integrated adult and pediatric neurology residency program.

Methods

Starting in 2011, all graduating residents were required to complete at least one form of scholarly activity broadly defined to include peer-reviewed publications or presentations at scientific meetings of formally mentored projects. The scholarly activity program was administered by the associate residency training director and included an expanded journal club, guided mentorship, a required grand rounds platform presentation, and annual awards for the most scholarly and seminal research findings. We compared scholarly output and mentorship for residents graduating within a 5-year period following program initiation (2011-2015) and during the preceding 5-year preprogram baseline period (2005-2009).

Results

Participation in scholarship increased from the preprogram baseline (24 of 53 graduating residents, 45.3%) to the postprogram period (47 of 57 graduating residents, 82.1%, p < 0.0001). Total scholarly output more than doubled from 49 activities preprogram (0.92/resident) to 139 postprogram (2.44/resident, p = 0.0002). The proportions of resident participation increased for case reports (20.8% vs 66.7%, p < 0.0001) and clinical research (17.0% vs 38.6%, p = 0.012), but were similar for laboratory research and topical reviews. The mean activities per resident increased for published abstracts (0.15 ± 0.41 to 1.26 ± 1.41, p < 0.0001), manuscripts (0.75 ± 1.37 to 1.00 ± 1.40, p = 0.36), and book chapters (0.02 ± 0.14 to 0.18 ± 0.60, p = 0.07). Rates of resident participation as first authors increased from 30.2% to 71.9% (p < 0.0001). The number of individual faculty mentors increased from 36 (preprogram) to 44 (postprogram).

Conclusions

Our multifaceted program, designed to enhance resident and faculty engagement in scholarship, was associated with increased academic output and an expanded mentorship pool. The program was particularly effective at encouraging presentations at scientific meetings. Longitudinal analysis will determine whether such a program portfolio inspires an increase in academic careers involving neuroscience-oriented research.

SUBMITTER: Robbins MS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5379930 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Scholarly Concentrations program was established at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in 2009 with the aim of instilling passion for scholarship.ObjectiveOur study aimed to determine whether the Scholarly Concentrations program achieves positive changes in medical student self-efficacy in conducting research and, if so, whether this results in future career aspirations toward scholarship.DesignWe used the Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory-Short Form (CRAI-SF) to assess changes in self-efficacy among students completing the Scholarly Concentrations program between 2014 and 2017. We calculated composite mean scores of six domains. We included outcomes on whether students published a manuscript, overall program perceptions, and likelihood of future research careers. We analyzed relationships between CRAI-SF scores and outcomes using paired t-tests and multivariable-adjusted logistic regression.ResultsA total of 419 students completed the Scholarly Concentrations program. All 6 CRAI domain scores showed significant improvements in self-efficacy between the pre-Scholarly Concentrations and post-Scholarly Concentrations ratings (range of changes 0.76-1.39, p < 0.05 for all). We found significant associations between post-Scholarly Concentrations self-efficacy ratings and course satisfaction (adjusted OR 1.57 [95% CI 1.20, 2.07]) and mentor satisfaction (OR 1.46 [1.15, 1.86]), as well as students' intent to conduct future research (OR 1.46 [1.15, 1.86]). These results were robust to sensitivity analyses, and pronounced in the group of students without prior research experience.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that a Scholarly Concentrations program is associated with an increased self-efficacy for research, and these changes in self-efficacy are associated with higher satisfaction in the scholarly experience and increased likelihood of pursuing scholarly work. Other medical schools could use such a tool of self-efficacy to both investigate the overall Scholarly Concentrations experience and understand factors that may increase interest in future physician-scientist pathways.

Project description:Background:Many fellows in clinically driven subspecialties may have difficulty completing and publishing their scholarly projects due to lack of prior experience in research, selection of projects that are difficult to complete during fellowship, or mentorship challenges. This may be particularly true in pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) because research time may be longitudinally integrated with clinical rotations, rather than blocked as is common in other subspecialties. We describe the creation and outcomes of a structured program to increase academic productivity of PEM fellows. Methods:This was a retrospective cohort study of scholarly productivity (publications in peer-reviewed journals, presentation at national meetings) for PEM fellows over 17 years in one fellowship program, before and after the implementation of a structured program. We reviewed obstacles to publication for prior fellow projects when developing the curriculum. Our multifaceted program consisted of milestone development, four in-person committee meetings, and abstract and manuscript development workshops. We utilized existing faculty members, most of whom were junior faculty, as committee members. Our primary outcome was the percentage of fellows who were first authors for peer-reviewed publications for their fellowship projects. National conference presentations were the secondary outcome. Results:Data for 76 PEM fellows were eligible for analysis: 44 (58%) before and 32 after programmatic implementation. There was a statistically significant increase in the percentage of fellows who published their studies (32% vs. 63%; odds ratio [OR] = 3.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4 to 9.3) after programmatic implementation. There were no differences in conference presentations (45% vs. 63%; OR = 2.0, 95% CI = 0.8-5.1) after implementation. Conclusions:Utilizing a small group of existing, predominantly junior faculty members, we created a structured program that enhanced PEM fellows' scholarly productivity and increased publications. We believe that this model is sustainable for and generalizable to other PEM fellowship programs.