ObjectivesThe medical field is facing a physician–scientist shortage. Medical schools could contribute to developing physician–scientists by stimulating student involvement in research. Studies have examined motivation for research as a key parameter of success. However, previous studies did not investigate if students act on their self-reported motivation. The aim of this study is to examine if motivation for research of medical students is related to actual research involvement. Furthermore, this study distinguishes intrinsic (IM) and extrinsic motivation (EM) for research and aims to investigate if a type of motivation matters in the relation between research motivation and involvement.Design and settingProspective cohort study in which students were surveyed at the start of medical school and reported IM and EM for research, self-efficacy, perceptions of research and curiosity on a 7-point Likert scale. One year later, students involved in research were identified. Logistic regression was used to examine influences of IM and EM on research involvement.ParticipantsAll undergraduate medical students starting at one medical school in the Netherlands in 2016. In total, 315 out of 316 students participated (99.7%), of whom 55 became involved in research (17.5%).Main outcome measureResearch involvement, which was operationalised as the enrolment of students in the research-based honours programme or the involvement of students in voluntary research activities outside of the regular curriculum.ResultsStudents with higher levels of IM were more often involved in research (OR 3.4; 95% CI 2.08 to 5.61), also after adjusting for gender, age, extracurricular high school activities, self-efficacy, perceptions and curiosity (OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.35 to 4.78). Higher levels of EM increased the odds of research involvement (OR 1.4; 95% CI 0.96 to 2.11). However, the effect of EM disappeared after adjusting for the above-mentioned factors (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.67 to 1.63). Furthermore, the effect of IM remained after adjusting for EM, whereas the effect of EM disappeared after adjusting for IM.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that the type of motivation matters and IM influences research involvement. Therefore, IM could be targeted to stimulate research involvement and could be seen as the first step towards success in fostering the physician–scientist workforce.

Objectives To investigate the definitions and applications of ‘spaced learning’ and to propose future directions for advancing its study and practice in health professions education. Method The authors searched five online databases for articles published on spaced learning in health professions education prior to February 2018. Two researchers independently screened articles for eligibility with set inclusion criteria. They extracted and analysed key data using both quantitative and qualitative methods. Results Of the 2972 records retrieved, 120 articles were included in the review. More than 90% of these articles were published in the last 10 years. The definition of spaced learning varied widely and was often not theoretically grounded. Spaced learning was applied in distinct contexts, including online learning, simulation training and classroom settings. There was a large variety of spacing formats, ranging from dispersion of information or practice on a single day, to intervals lasting several months. Generally, spaced learning was implemented in practice or testing phases and rarely during teaching. Conclusions Spaced learning is infrequently and poorly defined in the health professions education literature. We propose a comprehensive definition of spaced learning and emphasise that detailed descriptions of spacing formats are needed in future research to facilitate the operationalisation of spaced learning research and practice in health professions education.

Background: Research is of great value to make advancements within the medical field and, ultimately, offer the best possible patient care. Physician-scientists are key in contributing to the development of medicine, as they can bridge the gap between research and practice. However, medicine currently faces a physician-scientist shortage. A possible solution to cultivate physician-scientists is to engage medical students in research in early phases of medical school. Evidence-based strategies to stimulate positive perceptions of and motivation for research among students could help to enhance research engagement. Consequently, understanding of students' perceptions of and motivation for research is needed. Therefore, this study aimed to identify conditions under which students develop positive perceptions of and motivation for research by answering the following sub-questions: 1) how do first-year medical students perceive research? and 2) which factors contribute to motivation or demotivation for conducting research? Methods: We conducted a qualitative study with individual interviews using a grounded theory approach, involving 13 purposively sampled first-year medical students at Leiden University Medical Center. Results: Our results suggest that first-year students are already able to identify many aspects of research. Students elaborated on the relevance of research for professional practice and personal development. Furthermore, our results suggest a relationship between perceptions of and motivation for research. Some perceptions were identical to motivating or demotivating factors to conduct research, like the relevance of research for practice and performing statistics respectively. Other motivating factors were, among others, acknowledgment, autonomy, and inspiring role models. Demotivating factors were, among others, lack of autonomy and relevance, and inadequate collaboration.

IntroductionThe medical field is currently facing a physician-scientist shortage. One possible solution is to direct medical students towards a research oriented career. To do so, knowledge is needed on how to motivate medical students to do research. Therefore, this study examines motivation for research and identifies factors influencing intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for research among first-year medical students.MethodsFirst-year medical students were surveyed at the beginning of their bachelor’s program in 2016. On a 7-point Likert scale, students reported their motivation for research, self-efficacy, perceptions of research, curiosity, and need for challenge. Regression analyses were used to examine the influence of these factors on students’ motivation for research.ResultsOut of 316 approached students, 315 participated (99.7%). On average, students scored 5.49 on intrinsic, and 5.66 on extrinsic motivation for research. All factors measured influenced intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for research significantly and positively, also after adjusting for gender and age. Cumulative regression showed that these factors explained 39.6% of the variance in intrinsic, and 14% in extrinsic motivation for research.DiscussionAll factors play an important role in intrinsic and, to a lesser extent, extrinsic motivation for research. First-year medical students’ motivation for research could be enhanced by stimulating positive self-efficacy beliefs, positive perceptions of research, and curiosity. Also, it is important to fulfil students’ needs for challenge by stimulating them to actively conduct research. Thus, to catch students young and cultivate physician-scientists, students should be stimulated to engage in research from the beginning of medical training.

Introduction Engagement of clinicians in research is important for the integration of science and clinical practice. However, at this moment, there is a shortage of clinician-scientists. Success experiences can stimulate student interest in a research career. Conducting actual research leading to publication is a potential method to gain success experience. This study assessed whether publication as a medical student is associated with publication after graduation. We determined whether medical students in the Netherlands who are involved in research, as measured by publication in international journals before graduation: 1) are more likely to publish, 2) publish a greater number of papers, and 3) have higher citation impact scores after graduation. Methods We matched 2005–2008 MD graduates (with rare names, n = 4145 in total) from all eight Dutch university medical centres to their publications indexed in the Web of Science and published between 6 years before and 6 years after graduation. For sensitivity analysis we performed both automatic assignment on the whole group and manual assignment on a 10% random sample. Results Students who had published before graduation: 1) were 1.9 times as likely to publish, 2) published more papers, and 3) had a slightly higher citation impact after graduation. Discussion Medical students who conducted research leading to a publication before graduation were more likely to be scientifically active after graduation. While this is not a causal relationship per se , these results cautiously suggest that successful early involvement in research could influence the long-term scientific activity of clinicians.