Dataset Information

Scholarly concentration programs and medical student research productivity: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Scholarly concentration programs have become a common method to promote student inquiry and independent research in medical schools. Given the high resource requirements of scholarly concentration program implementation, it is important to examine program efficacy. This systematic review examined the impact of scholarly concentration programs on student research productivity.The authors carried out a literature search to find articles related to scholarly concentration program research productivity outcomes. The inclusion criterion was a method of rigorously evaluating program scholarly productivity. Study rigour was evaluated with the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument.The initial search disclosed 2467 unique records: 78 were considered based on titles and abstracts; eight were considered by scanning references. Eleven papers met the inclusion criteria: all were descriptive; none had a priori hypotheses that examined predictors of medical student research productivity in scholarly concentration programs or prospectively evaluated program impact on student scholarly output.While few in number and often lacking in rigour, the studies included herein suggest that adequate administrative support, strong mentorship and tailored program characteristics are essential in facilitating student research productivity in scholarly concentration programs. Given the challenges inherent in medical education research, a conceptual framework based on United Way's approach may help program planners and educators address this gap in the evaluation of scholarly concentration programs.

SUBMITTER: Havnaer AG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5542888 | biostudies-other | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Scholarly concentration programs and medical student research productivity: a systematic review.

Havnaer Annika G AG Chen Allison J AJ Greenberg Paul B PB

Perspectives on medical education 20170801 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>Scholarly concentration programs have become a common method to promote student inquiry and independent research in medical schools. Given the high resource requirements of scholarly concentration program implementation, it is important to examine program efficacy. This systematic review examined the impact of scholarly concentration programs on student research productivity.<h4>Methods</h4>The authors carried out a literature search to find articles related to scholarly con ...[more]

PMID: 28349265

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:BackgroundResearch engagement contributes to the improvement of patient care. A systematic review is a suitable first scholarly activity because it entails summarization of publicly available data and usually requires neither rigorous ethical review nor research funding.MethodsThis study aimed to develop a model workshop for healthcare staff to acquire skills in creating systematic review protocols based on their own clinical questions at teaching hospitals. We used an action research method to create a model workshop at four hospitals in Japan from April 2015 to March 2017. To improve the program, we solicited reflections using participant questionnaires for each lecture and examined the quality of homework submitted by participants after each lecture. We administered a revised final version of the workshop at five hospitals from April 2016 to March 2017. We evaluated the participants' scholarly productivity related to these workshops. The observation period was a minimum of 2 years following the workshops.ResultsMost participants had never developed a formal clinical research protocol and voluntarily participated in the workshop. The action research was developed and implemented at nine teaching hospitals in Japan, including one university hospital. The study developed a model nine-step workshop curriculum: 1) Research question development, 2) Search strategy development, 3) Search strategy brush-up, 4) Exclusion and inclusion criteria development, 5) Risk of bias assessment planning, 6) Meta-analysis planning, 7) Subgroup and sensitivity analysis planning, 8) Planning the presentation of results, and 9) Presentation protocols. A total of 233 participants, including medical doctors and other health professionals, produced 414 research questions. Seventy-nine participants (34%) completed the workshop, and 47 review teams accomplished systematic review protocols. The participants published 13 peer-reviewed articles as a result of the workshop.ConclusionsWe developed a structured scholarly productive model workshop for healthcare staff working at hospitals. We found healthcare staff with clinical subspecialties were able to develop an unexpectedly high number of research questions through this workshop. Medical teachers at hospitals with prior systematic review experience could teach how to develop systematic review protocols using this model. Further research is needed to increase the academic productivity of such workshops.Trial registrationUMIN (https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/), UMIN000017107 (4/15/2015), UMIN000025580 (1/10/2017).

Project description:ImportanceDespite the rapidly declining number of physician-investigators, there is no consistent structure within medical education so far for involving medical students in research.ObjectiveTo conduct an integrated mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies about medical students' participation in research, and to evaluate the evidence in order to guide policy decision-making regarding this issue.Evidence reviewWe followed the PRISMA statement guidelines during the preparation of this review and meta-analysis. We searched various databases as well as the bibliographies of the included studies between March 2012 and September 2013. We identified all relevant quantitative and qualitative studies assessing the effect of medical student participation in research, without restrictions regarding study design or publication date. Prespecified outcome-specific quality criteria were used to judge the admission of each quantitative outcome into the meta-analysis. Initial screening of titles and abstracts resulted in the retrieval of 256 articles for full-text assessment. Eventually, 79 articles were included in our study, including eight qualitative studies. An integrated approach was used to combine quantitative and qualitative studies into a single synthesis. Once all included studies were identified, a data-driven thematic analysis was performed.Findings and conclusionsMedical student participation in research is associated with improved short- and long- term scientific productivity, more informed career choices and improved knowledge about-, interest in- and attitudes towards research. Financial worries, gender, having a higher degree (MSc or PhD) before matriculation and perceived competitiveness of the residency of choice are among the factors that affect the engagement of medical students in research and/or their scientific productivity. Intercalated BSc degrees, mandatory graduation theses and curricular research components may help in standardizing research education during medical school.

Project description:Background Research is an essential component of Anesthesia, and the contributions of researchers and institutions can be appreciated from the analysis of scholarly outputs. Such analyses help identify major contributors and trends in publication. Little is known about the state of Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine (A.C.C.M.) research in Africa. We aimed to describe African A.C.C.M. research’s current landscape by determining its productivity per country and point towards possible ideas for improvement. Methods The authors searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from inception to May 4, 2020, for articles on or about A.C.C.M. in Africa. Studies were selected based on their titles and abstracts. Rayyan software was later on used for data management in the review selection process. Then, the full-text of eligible articles were screened. Data were extracted, and the number of articles per physician anesthesia providers and provider density were calculated. Kruskal Wallis test and Spearman’s correlation were used, and a P-value <?0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Of the 4690 articles, only 886 (18.9%) were included in the analysis. The articles were published between 1946 and 2020 in 278 target journals. 55 (6.2%) articles were published in the South African Journal of Surgery, 51 (5.8%) in Anesthesia and Analgesia, and 46 (5.2%) in Anaesthesia. 291 (32.8%) studies were cross-sectional. 195 (22.0%) first authors were from Nigeria, 118 (13.3%) from South Africa, and 88 (9.9%) from the U.S.A. Malawi (1.67), Togo (1.06), and Sierra Leone (1.00) had the highest number of articles per provider. Whereas Ethiopia (580.00), Nigeria (336.21), and Malawi (333.33) had the highest number of articles per provider density. Conclusion We identified the most and least productive African countries in A.C.C.M. research and a low-quality hierarchy of evidence in these publications. Hence, the study’s findings may aid in driving the A.C.C.M. research agenda and capacity building in Africa.

Project description: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.

Dataset Information

Scholarly concentration programs and medical student research productivity: a systematic review.

Publications

Scholarly concentration programs and medical student research productivity: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure