Graduate medical education scholarly activities initiatives: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

BackgroundAccording 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsWe 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).ConclusionsOur 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.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12909-018-1407-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A Curriculum to Increase Resident Scholarly Activity

“…Perhaps filling knowledge gaps with interventions like the CRW and The Recipe guidebook are necessary but insufficient to increase resident scholarship, and resident peer leaders allow residents to overcome the uncertainty barriers to scholarly activity described by Ledford et al 6 A qualitative study may help identify a correlation, and would also help identify other characteristics of the culture of scholarship that appears to be a common theme across successful scholarly activity interventions. 8 Other limitations to our study include short follow-up time, which may explain why conference participation increased, but longer lead time outcomes like textbook chapters and research participation did not.…”

“…6 Myriad strategies have been developed within specific programs to overcome barriers to scholarly activity. 7,8 Most of these strategies focus on overcoming the specific barriers listed above, and were well described by Seehusen and Weaver in 2009 across many programs, 9 and Alweis et al in 2015 as iterative improvements within a single program. 10 One successful alternative approach has been a scholarly activity point system, first described by Seehusen et al in 2009, 11 and later shown to be successful at several other programs.…”

Evaluation of a research methods course for clinical residents

“…Mentorship is an influential factor in a thriving research experience. 10,20,24,25 Prior studies have reported a lack of proper mentoring as a significant barrier for research. 4,8 Residents of TUOMS were less motivated to do research due to 1) mandatory research topics and 2) advisors/ mentors.…”

Residency Leader Motivations to Engage Residents and Residency Faculty in Scholarship: A Qualitative Study

“…1,11,12 Reported barriers include limited time, little funding, difficulty identifying mentors, and insufficient technical support. [13][14][15][16] Although survey research revealed program characteristics related to scholarship success, [17][18][19][20][21] it cannot provide a rich understanding of residency leadership perspectives on scholarship. Qualitative inquiry into how leaders perceive these requirements and how they communicate about requirements can provide deeper understanding of leader perspectives.…”