Interventions to increase research publications in graduate medical education trainees: a systematic review

Zimmerman, Ryan D.; Alweis, Richard; Short, Alexandra; Wasser, Tom; Donato, Anthony A.

doi:10.5114/aoms.2018.81033

Cited by 19 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Time for research is crucial in clinical residency. 4,8,10,25,26 In the TUOMS research program, a protected one month period during the first year of residency was allocated to proposal writing, but program directors did not consider a similar protected time for research execution. Although one month of protected time helped residents complete proposals, it caused understaffed wards, scheduling difficulties, and residents missing some clinical experience.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 "Citations per faculty" is one of the criteria accepted by most worldwide organizations to rank universities, persuading university program directors to include scholarly activities in all educational programs to increase publication rates among medical students and residents. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Evidence shows various barriers toward residents' research; however, there are reports of successful results, and often benefits are more than merely an increase in publications. Residents with research training are more satisfied with their careers and deliver better patient care.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Residents with research training are more satisfied with their careers and deliver better patient care. 7,[10][11][12] Various published curricula exist with research training objectives. Systematic reviews of these curricula have reported several features of residency programs incorporating research education, such as research director involvement, protected research time, research requirements, research mentor, support from research assistants or biostatisticians, IT support, research funding availability, pay for performance incentives, and celebration of accomplishments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These are the principal components of research courses; however, there are no statistically significant differences in the mean primary outcome for any single intervention. 10 Authorities at the Tabriz University of Medical Science (TUOMS) proposed a research training curriculum to accelerate the process of completing research proposals and increase the number of publications by clinical residents. [13][14][15] This study was designed to evaluate this research education program and assess the outcomes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of a research methods course for clinical residents

Shishavan

Alizadeh

2019

Res Dev Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Residency programs generally carry out various educational interventions to improve residents’ publication records. Since an intervention may not produce the same effect in different locations, evaluating the effectiveness of individual interventions is essential for examining progress in this field of study. Authorities at the Tabriz University of Medical Science (TUOMS) proposed a research training program targeting a rise in residents’ scholarly activity and publications; this study aimed to evaluate the program and share the findings and experiences. Methods: Questionnaires were sent to 182 residents and the heads of all clinical departments. Evaluators used Kirkpatrick’s four-level model and Stufflebeam’s Context, Input, Process and Product model for data gathering and analyzing. Focus group discussions (FGDs) and in-depth semi-structured interviews were done with faculty members, executive staff, and residents to complement the survey results. Data were summarized and categorized using quantitative and qualitative analysis. Results: The participation rate for residents and heads of departments were 76 (41.7%) and 14(70%), respectively. At the end of the course, residents assessed their knowledge and research skills as weak or medium in most of the subjects. A total of 182 (100 %) residents prepared thesis proposals. Only 82 (49.1%) residents completed their thesis, and 19 (11.3%) published papers.Generally, participants were not satisfied with the course. Barriers noted were: mandatory topics for theses, an intensive course with a one-month duration, a lack of consideration of practical subjects, high cost of the course, and failure to achieve an increase in publications. Conclusion: The Self-assessment results of increased knowledge and research skills did not indicate improvement. Mandatory participation in the course did not result in the expected publication increase.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of a research methods course for clinical residents

Shishavan

Alizadeh

2019

Res Dev Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The content expert program: A structured approach to increase emergency medicine resident scholarly activity

Schreyer

Portal

Blome

et al. 2022

AEM Education and Training

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires residents to participate in scholarship and requires residency programs to provide an environment within which residents can acquire skills related to scholarly activities. However, consensus on the definition of scholarship and structure of program environments does not yet exist. We designed and implemented a content expert program (CEP) in 2015, in which each resident worked with a faculty advisor to develop a longitudinal scholarly activity linked to a core area of practice and, in doing so, became the department's “content expert.” We hypothesized that the CEP would significantly increase the number of scholarly outputs per resident. Methods The CEP was structured around an oversight committee composed of key faculty members, which guided development of CEP projects through regular meetings and formative feedback. Each resident generated one or more scholarly outputs from their content area. Outputs were categorized into educational, operational, research, and miscellaneous domains and further identified as intradepartmental, interdepartmental, or interdisciplinary collaborations. The number of outputs was compared to the baseline number of scholarly activities per resident at the study program using a Mann–Whitney U test. Results A total of 187 scholarly outputs were generated by 76 residents, which equated to 31.2 outputs per year, or 2.5 outputs per resident. This was a significant increase compared to the program baseline of one output per resident (p = 0.003). Eighteen distinct types of outputs spanned four major categories. Of the outputs, 37 were interdepartmental, 42 were interdisciplinary, and 32 were intradepartmental. Conclusions The CEP proved to be a sustainable way to significantly increase scholarly activity and additionally improved collaborative efforts. With the appropriate structure and willing faculty in place, such a program can enhance the practical education provided by residency programs.

show abstract

How‐to guide for effectively performing and coordinating multicenter observational research as a clinical pharmacist

Hammond¹,

Rech

2019

J Am Coll Clin Pharm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While single‐center research serves multiple purposes for the provision of patient care and identification of testable hypotheses, the importance of multicenter research is well established. The purpose of this “how‐to” guide is to assist pharmacists with the various steps in performing and coordinating multicenter, observational research. The steps that are reviewed include identifying a precise and appropriate research question; determining the expected final products or deliverables from the project and the timeline needed to satisfactorily achieve each step in the process toward these deliverables; establishing the research team structure and recognition of project contributions; navigating the institutional review board approval and data sharing and storage processes; collecting, cleaning, and analyzing data; evaluating additional project management considerations; avoiding and resolving pitfalls of multicenter research; and wrapping up the project. Resources are provided to encourage and support pharmacist principal investigators in their research efforts.

show abstract

Interventions to increase research publications in graduate medical education trainees: a systematic review

Cited by 19 publications

References 50 publications

Evaluation of a research methods course for clinical residents

Evaluation of a research methods course for clinical residents

The content expert program: A structured approach to increase emergency medicine resident scholarly activity

How‐to guide for effectively performing and coordinating multicenter observational research as a clinical pharmacist

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About