Bridging the gap between research training and dissemination: evaluation of a feedback-rich medical student research presentation program

Abstract

Background

Following the transition of the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 to Pass/Fail scoring, research productivity and the ability to communicate scholarly work effectively are increasingly important for residency applicants. While medical schools have expanded access to research opportunities, structured training that prepares students for research dissemination remains limited. To address this gap, the Student Opportunities for Advancement in Research Office implemented and evaluated the Medical Student Research Presentation (MSRP) series, a feedback-rich program designed to support research communication skill development and presenter confidence among medical students.

Methods

The MSRP was hosted monthly from December 2024 to November 2025 to support medical students across two campuses. Student participants delivered 7-minute research presentations followed by a 3-minute question-and-answer session with reviewers, who provided feedback using a standardized rubric. Program evaluation was conducted using a 33-item post-session survey guided by the Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to summarize presenter motivations, perceived usefulness of the session, changes in confidence across presentation skills, and application of feedback to scholarly products.

Results

Twenty-eight medical students presented during the study period, with 17 (60.7%) completing the post-session survey. All respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the MSRP provided actionable feedback and would recommend the program to peers. The most frequently reported areas of improvement included communication (76.5%), confidence (70.6%), and responding to audience questions (70.6%). Directional confidence gains were observed across presentation skills, with first-time presenters showing the largest gains in explaining research clearly and answering audience questions, and presenters with prior presentation experience demonstrating the strongest gains in engaging the audience. Most participants reported incorporation of feedback into revised presentations (64.7%), manuscripts (41.2%), or conference presentations (35.3%). Thirteen participants (76.5%) reported applying to present their MSRP talk at other conferences. Among those who applied (n = 13), 76.9% were accepted to present.

Conclusions

The MSRP is a transferable research presentation program that supports medical students’ confidence, communication skills, and early scholarly dissemination. By providing structured, feedback-rich presentation practice prior to formal conferences, the MSRP addresses a gap between project execution and scholarship in the undergraduate medical education research pipeline.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-09834-z.

Background

Early engagement in research fosters critical thinking, analytical skills, self-directed learning, and interest in physician-investigator careers [1–4]. As such, residency programs increasingly emphasize research experiences in admission, especially following the transition of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 to Pass/Fail scoring [5]. National surveys show that 358 of 873 U.S. residency program directors (41.0%) place higher value on research when offering interviews, especially in more competitive specialties [5, 6]. This emphasis is reflected in the experience of medical students at the University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix, who reported that 40.0% of residency interviewers asked about overall research, including both scholarly and non-scholarly projects [7]. In response to increasing demand for research experience, many medical schools have implemented longitudinal research training across their curricula, with mandatory training in at least 30 U.S. programs [1].

Research presentations at conferences and symposia remain among the most common indicators of medical student research productivity [8]. Despite their prevalence, medical students may exhibit low confidence and effectiveness in delivering presentations due to a variety of factors. Among the most critical factors are opportunities for guided practice and constructive feedback from expert mentors, with a lack of either being associated with decreased confidence in oral presentations [9–11]. Additional barriers include the fear of being judged, physical symptoms, and topic uncertainty [11]. As such, there is a need to prepare students for research presentations more effectively. Deliberate practice has been shown to improve oral presentation skills [12], even when conducted in virtual reality settings [13]. Additionally, feedback from instructors or experts that references specific performance standards is particularly effective for improving student learning and identifying strengths and weaknesses [14–16]. Peer feedback can further enhance the quality of student presentations [14–16].

Despite increasing curricular emphasis on research participation, dissemination training at the institutional level often occurs episodically at annual research days or capstone symposia. These formats typically occur late in the research process and provide limited opportunity for iterative practice or formative feedback [17, 18]. As a result, students may present their work publicly for the first time at regional or national conferences, where expectations for clarity, confidence, and audience engagement are high [17]. This structure contributes to a gap between research participation and effective scholarly dissemination, particularly for students with limited prior presentation experience.

In this report, we describe the implementation and evaluation of the Medical Student Research Presentation (MSRP), a centrally coordinated research presentation series organized by the Student Opportunities for Advancement in Research (SOAR) Office to support medical students across two campuses at Baylor College of Medicine (BCM). The MSRP provides medical students with a low-stress environment to present research at any stage of development, build communication skills for conferences, and connect with and receive direct feedback from reviewers with expertise in their project topic. We aim to examine (1) student motivations for participating in the MSRP, (2) the perceived usefulness and benefits of the MSRP, (3) changes in student confidence across presentation skills, and (4) how student scholarship is shaped by MSRP feedback. This study contributes evidence on how centrally coordinated, feedback-rich presentation programs can address a gap in the undergraduate medical education research pipeline, particularly within multi-campus settings.

Methods

Program aims

The aims of the Medical Student Research Presentation (MSRP) series were informed by (1) national trends demonstrating increased emphasis on research in residency interviews, (2) evidence supporting the role of feedback in improving medical students’ presentation skills, and (3) local observations of increasing student demand for structured research dissemination opportunities. The primary objective of the MSRP was to create a structured platform for medical students to present early-stage or conference ready research projects, receive constructive feedback, and build confidence in research presentation skills. The program targeted competencies related to oral communication, presentation confidence, critical thinking, presentation construction, response to audience questions, scientific storytelling, and audience engagement. These competencies were aligned with Glassick’s criteria for scholarship, which emphasize effective presentation of research to appropriate audiences [19].

Program design and setting

The MSRP was evaluated using a descriptive program evaluation conducted between December 5, 2024, and November 6, 2025, during which 11 MSRP sessions were held. Although the present study evaluates the first year of program implementation, the MSRP has continued beyond this year-long evaluation period. Each session consisted of 2 to 3 student presenters delivering a 7-minute research presentation to a panel of reviewers, followed immediately by a 3-minute question-and-answer period. To support participation across campuses, the session was offered synchronously with on-campus rooms and a centralized Microsoft Teams link. Students were allowed to present in multiple MSRP sessions.

The MSRP was designed as a feedback-rich presentation experience in which each presenter received feedback from multiple reviewers through a combination of quantitative rubric ratings, narrative comments, and live question-and-answer interactions. Presenters received an average of six completed reviewer evaluations per session. Review panels included faculty members, residents, and content experts, simulating the format and expectations of conference or symposium presentations. This format was intended to promote active, practice-oriented learning strategies shown to enhance training effectiveness [20].

Initial invitations were extended to faculty members listed as mentors in the SOAR research database, a centralized institutional platform that connects medical students with faculty-led research opportunities and mentors who have expressed willingness to support medical student scholarship. Additional reviewers were identified through institutional websites based on their involvement in research and medical student education. Participation was voluntary, and reviewers were invited via email to serve on presentation review panels. Reviewers were recruited via email invitations and provided with a standardized scoring rubric to evaluate presentation quality, along with a free-response section for narrative feedback (see Additional file 1). Reviewers were recruited independently of student presenters and were not selected based on an existing mentoring relationship. There were no strict requirements for reviewers to be familiar with the topics being presented. For each MSRP session, approximately 20 faculty and resident reviewers were invited via email to participate. On average, six reviewers participated per session. Other students did not serve as reviewers.

At least one week before each session, reviewers received the presentation abstracts, the scoring rubric, and instructions for using the rubric during student presentations. Feedback addressed multiple aspects of presentation performance, including presentation organization, clarity of research communication, slide design, data presentation, audience engagement, and responses to audience questions. Written feedback from reviewers was compiled and distributed to presenters immediately following each session. Presenters and reviewers were strongly encouraged to attend sessions in person; however, a virtual attendance option was also available.

Data collection

A 33-item survey was developed using REDCap and guided by the Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model (see Additional file 2) [21]. Survey items were designed to evaluate three levels of the framework. Reaction (Level 1) assessed participants’ perceptions of the usefulness of the MSRP session and reviewer feedback. Learning (Level 2) assessed self-reported improvements in presentation-related skills and confidence. Behavior (Level 3) assessed the application of reviewer feedback to subsequent scholarly activities, including presentation revisions, manuscript preparation, and conference submissions.

Among various participant characteristics, presenters identified their project type. Project type was self-reported by student presenters during abstract submission. At BCM, medical students receive guidance on research project classifications through multiple mechanisms, including the SOAR Introduction to Research workshop, the Foundations of Academic Scholarship Through Research course, and faculty mentor guidance regarding project design and classification.

For motivation and skill items, presenters were allowed to select up to three response options. For confidence assessment, presenters selected up to three skills they felt least confident and up to three skills they felt most confident before and after participation.

Survey links were distributed to presenters immediately following their MSRP session, with one follow-up reminder email sent five days later. Quantitative items used 5-point Likert scales, while qualitative data were collected through checkbox selections and open-ended free-text responses.

Data analysis

Quantitative survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to summarize presenter characteristics, perceived usefulness of the MSRP, and changes in confidence following participation. Changes in confidence were summarized using descriptive statistics examining shifts in the proportion of presenters selecting each skill as least confident or most confident before and after participation. Directional shifts in confidence were summarized separately for first-time presenters and presenters with prior presentation experience. First-time presenters were defined as participants who self-reported presenting their research for the first time in any setting, including institutional, local, regional, or national venues. Presenters with prior presentation experience were defined as participants who reported having previously presented their research in any setting. Participant characteristics and reported incorporation of MSRP feedback were organized into tables. Qualitative free-text responses and optional text entries that appeared upon selection of “Other” within checkbox questions were manually reviewed by both investigators and categorized by recurring themes, including compliments, beneficial aspects, and areas for improvement to identify patterns among responses.

Participant characteristics

All medical students enrolled at BCM were eligible to participate in the MSRP on a voluntary basis. A total of 28 medical students presented their research projects during the study period, of whom 60.7% (n = 17) completed the voluntary REDCap survey after their sessions. Only one student presented twice in the MSRP, but this student did not participate in the survey. Presenters represented multiple class years, including 41.2% (n = 7) third-year medical students, 23.5% (n = 4) second-year medical students, and 35.3% (n = 6) first-year medical students. Of the 17 presenters who completed the survey, 64.7% (n = 11) were first-time research presenters and 35.3% (n = 6) had prior presentation experience (Table 1).

Table 1.

Characteristics of Medical Student Research Presentation (MSRP) survey respondents

Characteristic	MSRP Presenters (n = 17)
Class Year
MS1	6 (35.3%)
MS2	4 (23.5%)
MS3	7 (41.2%)
Campus
Houston	15 (88.2%)
Temple	2 (11.8%)
How Project Was Identified
Direct Faculty Contact	7 (41.2%)
Institutional Research Database	6 (35.3%)
Recommendation from Student/Resident/Fellow	2 (11.8%)
Other	2 (11.8%)
Project Type
Clinical Research	11 (64.7%)
Translational Research	2 (11.8%)
Basic Research	2 (11.8%)
Health Services Research	1 (5.9%)
Quality Improvement / Patient Safety	1 (5.9%)
First-Time Presenting Research Findings
Yes	11 (64.7%)
No	6 (35.3%)

Results

MSRP presenter motivations

To examine medical students’ motivation to present at the MSRP, survey respondents were asked to identify their primary motivations for participation. All respondents (100%, n = 17) reported participating with the intention of improving their ability to present research findings clearly and effectively (Fig. 1). In addition, 70.6% of student presenters (n = 12) reported seeking constructive feedback to improve their presentations and research, while 58.8% (n = 10) indicated that they participated to present their work in an academic community and to enhance their resumes/CVs through a research presentation experience (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Primary motivations for presenting in the Medical Student Research Presentation (MSRP) series. Motivations were collected through a post-session REDCap survey. Percentages represent the proportion of respondents (n = 17) who selected each motivation; participants could select up to three motivation options

Perceived usefulness and benefits of the MSRP

Consistent with Kirkpatrick Level 1 (Reaction), we evaluated participants’ perceptions of the MSRP after their sessions. Our survey revealed that all participants agreed or strongly agreed that the MSRP provided actionable feedback to improve their research presentations and would recommend the MSRP to their peers (Fig. 2A). Additionally, 88.24% of participants (n = 15) agreed or strongly agreed that the MSRP helped them think about future steps in their research (Fig. 2A). When asked which presentation skills they felt improved following the session, presenters most frequently identified communication (76.47%, n = 13), confidence (70.59%, n = 12), and responding to audience questions (70.59%, n = 12) (Fig. 2B).

Fig. 2.

Presenter perceptions of the usefulness and perceived skill benefits of the Medical Student Research Presentation (MSRP) session. A Post-session agreement with statements related to the usefulness of the MSRP session and reviewers’ feedback. B Presentation skills identified by participants as most improved following MSRP participation; participants could select up to three skill options

Changes in presenter confidence and perceived skill development

To evaluate Kirkpatrick Level 2 (Learning), presenters retrospectively identified up to three presentation skills they perceived as their most confident and least confident before and after participation in the MSRP session. We examined descriptive changes in the proportion of presenters selecting each skill at each time point. Participants were stratified into first-time presenters (n = 11), defined as students presenting research findings for the first time, and presenters with prior presentation experience (n = 6).

Among first-time presenters, descriptive increases were observed in the proportion of participants selecting explaining research clearly and answering audience questions among their most confident skills following participation in the session (Supplementary Fig. 1A). These increases in confidence coincided with reductions in the proportion of presenters identifying these skills as among their least confident following participation (Supplementary Fig. 2A). In contrast, using presentation slides effectively showed a decrease in selection as a most confident skill.

Among presenters with prior presentation experience, an increase was observed in the proportion of participants selecting engaging the audience as among their most confident skills following participation in the session (Supplementary Fig. 1B). This change coincided with a reduction in the proportion of presenters identifying this skill as among their least confident following participation (Supplementary Fig. 2B).

Incorporation of feedback and early scholarly outcomes

Consistent with Kirkpatrick Level 3 (Behavior), reported application of feedback to subsequent scholarly activities provided early indicators of behavioral change. Following participation in the MSRP, most respondents (64.7%, n = 11) reported revising their research presentations based on reviewer feedback, while others reported application of feedback to conference presentations (35.3%, n = 6) or manuscript preparation (41.2%, n = 7) (Table 2). One participant reported using feedback primarily for personal skill development.

Table 2.

Incorporation of MSRP feedback into scholarly activities

Scholarly Outcome	MSRP Presenters (n = 17)
Incorporation of MSRP feedback into future research
A revised research presentation	11 (64.7%)
A conference presentation	6 (35.3%)
A research manuscript	7 (41.2%)
A grant or funding application	0 (0.0%)
Other: “Personal improvement”	1 (5.9%)
Applied or plans to apply to present at a conference
Yes	13 (76.5%)
No	4 (23.5%)
Accepted to present at a conference	n = 13
Yes	10 (76.9%)
No	3 (23.1%)

Most respondents (76.5%, n = 13) reported having applied or planning to apply to present their research at a conference. Among those who applied, 76.9% (n = 10 of 13) reported acceptance to present (Table 2). Students reported acceptance to present their work at local, regional, national, and international conferences. These findings suggest that the MSRP provided students with an opportunity to receive formative feedback on presentation skills that could subsequently be applied to scholarly dissemination activities.

The majority of respondents who provided free-text feedback described the MSRP as a well-organized and valuable experience, noting the quality of feedback received: “It was a great session and very organized! Great feedback,” and “Receiving this feedback was an amazing opportunity.” Several participants expressed interest in additional guidance on visual communication, particularly slide design, as reflected in the comment: “I really appreciated the opportunity to present but wish there was more advice on building a PowerPoint to discuss my research and data.” Suggestions to improve session logistics focused on time management and session structure, including clearer separation of questions and feedback, as noted by one participant: “Potentially extend the time for the Q&A section.”

Discussion

The evaluation of the Medical Student Research Presentation (MSRP) series suggests that structured, recurring opportunities for research presentation practice can enhance medical students’ confidence and perceived skill development in scholarly communication. Using the Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model, the program demonstrated positive participant reactions, self-reported learning related to presentation skills and confidence, and early behavioral outcomes reflected by the opportunity to receive feedback on their research presentations that could subsequently be applied to scholarly dissemination activities. As expectations for research productivity continue to rise in residency applications, programs that support dissemination readiness are increasingly important for student scholarship [1]. The MSRP addresses this need by providing a supportive environment in which students can present work at any stage of development, receive constructive feedback, and develop skills required for conference participation.

While different medical schools provide access for medical students to research databases to identify mentors and projects [22–24], as well as travel awards to support conference dissemination [25–27], opportunities for guided presentation practice prior to regional or national meetings are often limited. The MSRP bridges this gap between research and external dissemination by offering feedback-rich presentation experiences earlier in the research pipeline. Exploratory analyses suggested that patterns of confidence change may vary based on prior presentation experience. First-time presenters more frequently reported increases in confidence related to explaining research clearly and answering audience questions, whereas presenters with prior presentation experience more often reported increases in confidence related to engaging the audience. Although these subgroup sizes were small and the findings are descriptive, these patterns suggest that feedback-rich presentation programs may support different aspects of research communication depending on learners’ prior experience. These findings align with existing literature demonstrating that repeated practice, expert feedback, and realistic simulation environments contribute to skill development in medical education [12–16].

Beyond individual skill development, the MSRP functions as a co-curricular institutional program, thereby supporting existing research requirements without increasing curricular burden. At Baylor College of Medicine, medical students are required to complete an independent scholarly project and present their work at a conference, symposium, or other scholarly venue. Although participation in the MSRP is voluntary, the program provides students with a mechanism for practice research presentation, receive formative feedback, and refine their communication skills prior to these presentations. This approach allows the MSRP to complement existing curricular requirements while accommodating diverse schedules and timelines. A key innovation of the MSRP is its centralized coordination through an institutional research office, which enables sustainability, scalability, and access across campuses.

Students reported applying MSRP feedback to revised abstracts, posters, oral presentations, and manuscripts. Participants also reported presenting their research at local, regional, national, and international conferences. Together, these findings suggest that students perceived the feedback received through the MSRP as applicable to subsequent scholarly activities and dissemination efforts. Participant feedback also highlighted opportunities for future program development. Some students expressed interest in additional guidance related to slide design, data visualization, and presentation preparation. Although these areas currently fall outside the primary scope of the MSRP, future initiatives could incorporate supplemental workshops or asynchronous resources to further support students’ research communication and dissemination skills.

While the MSRP showed improvements in medical student confidence and skill acquisition in research presentation, this study has limitations to consider. The survey sample size was relatively small, limiting statistical power for some comparisons. Subgroup comparisons based on prior presentation experience were exploratory due to the small sample size. Confidence and skill development were measured through self-report rather than observed performance.

In addition, participants were asked to identify up to three skills in which they felt most confident and up to three skills in which they felt least confident before and after participation. Because respondents selected a limited number of skills rather than rating confidence independently across all domains, the results should be interpreted as relative rankings of confidence areas rather than absolute measures of confidence. Consequently, observed shifts may reflect changes in the prioritization of perceived strengths and weaknesses rather than true increases or decreases in confidence across individual skills.

Although the structure of the MSRP is easily generalizable, this study was conducted at a single institution. The hybrid delivery model also introduced technical difficulties for one participant who reported difficulty listening to the presenter on the other campus, highlighting the importance of technology and audiovisual support across campuses. Future research may explore long-term effects on objective presentation performance and assess how repeated participation influences scholarly productivity over time. Despite these limitations, the MSRP addresses a gap in research training by providing a structured, developmental pathway for students to practice scientific communication within a centralized, feedback-rich, formative environment.

Conclusions

In an educational landscape where research productivity and dissemination skills are increasingly emphasized in undergraduate medical education and residency selection, the MSRP series offers a scalable, low-cost approach to supporting students in moving from research participation to formal dissemination. By creating recurring opportunities for presentation practice and structured feedback, the MSRP strengthens an underdeveloped step in the medical student research pipeline. Improvements in confidence across presentation skills, along with students’ reported application of reviewer feedback to scholarly materials, highlight the value of centrally coordinated presentation programs in supporting access to dissemination training and sustained student engagement in scholarship.

Authors’ contributions

Both MD and MP made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work; the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and the drafting and revision of the work. Both MD and MP have approved the submitted version and agreed to be personally accountable for their own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of the work are appropriately investigated, resolved, and documented in the literature.

Funding

This research received no funding.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board for Baylor College of Medicine and Affiliated Hospitals under protocol number (H-56067) on November 13, 2024. The Institutional Review Board for Baylor College of Medicine and Affiliated Hospitals granted a waiver of informed consent and HIPAA authorization because the study involved minimal-risk analysis of program evaluation data, including post-participation survey responses. The study was conducted in compliance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.