Dataset Information

Evaluation of an early career clinical academic training programme using the CIPP model

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

This study describes the successful implementation and outputs of a combined clinical academic training programme for doctors in their first postgraduate year in Ireland, the Academic Internship Track (AIT).

Design

The AIT was evaluated using the Context, Input, Process and Product model. Literature reviews, meetings with key stakeholders, reviews of similar established programmes overseas, a survey of undergraduate medical students, exit survey, scientific outputs and career trajectory monitoring were all implemented in the programme evaluation.

Setting

The AIT represents collaboration amongst all six intern training networks in Ireland.

Results

Key stakeholders indicated support and significant interest in establishing the AIT. The input evaluation informed programme design which incorporates protected time to carry out a research project, a named supervisor, a bursary and access to dedicated study days. Since the programme’s launch in 2017, there has been 100% uptake of posts and 0% attrition. Exiting participants indicate high levels of satisfaction with the programme; 92% reported having benefited from participation. Over 90% intend remaining in Ireland in both the immediate and longer terms. Fifty-seven per cent of participants in the first 3 years of the programme had succeeded in publishing a research article or review paper in a peer-reviewed journal.

Conclusions

Now in its fourth year, AIT remains a highly sought-after programme and is perceived to be beneficial to one’s career. Participants in the programme have contributed significantly to their field of interest despite being in the earliest career stages. The programme has the potential to help retain medical talent in Ireland.

SUBMITTER: Burke E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8572397 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Early research on the impact of COVID-19 on academic scientists suggests that disruptions to research, teaching, and daily work life are not experienced equally. However, this work has overwhelmingly focused on experiences of women and parents, with limited attention to the disproportionate impact on academic work by race, disability status, sexual identity, first-generation status, and academic career stage. Using a stratified random survey sample of early-career academics in four science disciplines (N = 3,277), we investigated socio-demographic and career stage differences in the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic along seven work outcomes: changes in four work areas (research progress, workload, concern about career advancement, support from mentors) and work disruptions due to three COVID-19 related life challenges (physical health, mental health, and caretaking). Our analyses examined patterns across career stages as well as separately for doctoral students and for postdocs/assistant professors. Overall, our results indicate that scientists from marginalized (i.e., devalued) and minoritized (i.e., underrepresented) groups across early career stages reported more negative work outcomes as a result of COVID-19. However, there were notable patterns of differences depending on the socio-demographic identities examined. Those with a physical or mental disability were negatively impacted on all seven work outcomes. Women, primary caregivers, underrepresented racial minorities, sexual minorities, and first-generation scholars reported more negative experiences across several outcomes such as increased disruptions due to physical health symptoms and additional caretaking compared to more privileged counterparts. Doctoral students reported more work disruptions from life challenges than other early-career scholars, especially those related to health problems, while assistant professors reported more negative changes in areas such as decreased research progress and increased workload. These findings suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately harmed work outcomes for minoritized and marginalized early-career scholars. Institutional interventions are required to address these inequalities in an effort to retain diverse cohorts in academic science.