Abstract
Background
There is ongoing debate about best practice models to support active learning by encouraging medical students to conduct independent research projects. This study explored student satisfaction, experiences, and learning outcomes of a unique, mandatory research program in an Australian medical school.
Methods
Students were invited to complete an anonymous survey ranking statements using Likert scales and completing open-ended questions. Factors predicting student satisfaction with the research year were analysed using a generalised linear regression model. A content analysis of open-ended questions was conducted.
Results
The survey was completed in October 2019 by 117 of 252 students (46%). The majority (84%) reported satisfaction with the research year. Factors associated with satisfaction were research skills learnt (OR 2.782, 95% CI 1.428–5.421; p < 0.003), supervision and support (OR = 2.587, 95% CI 1.237–5.413; p < 0.012), and meaningfulness and experience (OR = 2.506, 95% CI 1.100–5.708; p < 0.029). Qualitative results confirmed support from the faculty and supervisors, perceiving their research as meaningful, and the opportunity to learn research skills were highly regarded by students.
Conclusions
This study has shown that learning outcomes for basic research skills and high satisfaction rates can be achieved in a mandatory undergraduate research programme when students have dedicated time for their research, opportunities to negotiate their own project, and good support from faculty and mentors.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-021-01340-9.
Keywords: Medical student research, Student satisfaction, Supervisor support, Research skills
Introduction
Medical professionals need to have a good understanding of basic medical research skills in order to practice evidence-based medicine, critically appraise research reports, and to be able to conduct sound medical research during the course of their medical career. Therefore, training in research skills is now an essential component of medical school curricula [1, 2]. The Association for Medical Education in Europe (AMEE) has provided guidelines for developing research skills amongst medical students and recommends students’ active involvement in implementing independent research projects under the supervision of experienced mentors [1].
Various models have been implemented in order to provide medical students with opportunities to conduct their own research projects including individual or group projects [3], and either elective, extra-curricular programmes [4–6], or mandatory programmes [7–12]. Mandatory programmes can be longitudinal where students conduct their research in parallel with their other studies or in focused immersive blocks dedicated to their research project [11]. Some medical schools offer students choices of the type of research project and include for example implementation of community projects [12]. It is difficult to assess best practice as there is large variation in defining learning outcomes and a lack of evaluation of higher-order outcomes such as critical thinking skills [13]. There are student reports of learning basic research skills even in short elective research projects such as summer research jobs [6]. There is evidence that structured programmes encouraging medical student involvement in research increases their research capability and can have a positive impact on their careers [10, 14]. Several reviews have identified factors critical to successful completion and satisfaction amongst students. These include dedicated involvement of faculty and academics [10], effective supervision of research projects by mentors [7, 15], clarity on learning and research outcomes for students and supervisors [15], and offering students diverse research projects [7, 12]. One of the major challenges, particularly for elective programmes and those running parallel to teaching, is lack of dedicated time to complete the research project [5, 6, 8, 15].
At the University of New South Wales (UNSW) an innovative approach to develop medical students’ research capability was commenced in 2006 [16, 17]. The Independent Learning Project and Honours programme (ILP/Honours) is a 9-month, dedicated, mandatory module in year 4 of the 6-year undergraduate medical programme where students focus on conducting their own research project under the supervision of an experienced researcher. Students are given time and support in year 3 to prepare for their project and are encouraged to negotiate their own project with a supervisor working in a field of interest to the student. During their research module, students are encouraged to design their own research question and methodology and collect and analyse their own data with the guidance of their supervisor. As the research project is mandatory, students who are unable to identify a supervisor and design a suitable project are allocated to a supervisor who has suggested suitable research projects. Supervisors are usually academic researchers employed or affiliated to the Medical School or the various clinical schools and research institutes associated with UNSW Medicine. Research fields are broad and include public health, laboratory-based research, and clinical research topics with some projects involving human subjects. Student can use qualitative or quantitative methodology or both. Most students enrol in the ILP programme, whilst the top 30 high achieving students can enter the Honours programme. Students in the ILP programme commit to 25 h a week of research for 30 weeks and complete two general education subjects. Honours students commit to 35 h a week for 34 weeks and are required to complete their general education subjects before year 4. All students are required to conduct and submit a literature review in the first few months and then to present an oral and written report at the end of the programme. Short online modules in topics relevant to research (for example: statistics and qualitative research methods) are offered to students as part of the ILP/Honours programme. Student support is provided by their supervisor(s), as well as the ILP/Honours programme convenor. Learning outcomes are listed (Table 1).
Table 1.
Learning outcomes of the UNSW ILP/Honours programme
| Demonstrate effective oral and written communication skills in clear and concise presentation of research information that is appropriately referenced |
| Demonstrate understanding of relevant research methodologies by applying them appropriately to a research project |
| Collect, analyse and interpret qualitative and/or quantitative data, and reach appropriate conclusions that are supported by evidence |
| Interpret and critically evaluate research literature, to formulate hypotheses or research questions and then to justify discussion, comparisons, or conclusions from the research performed |
| Demonstrate professional skills in planning, time management, teamwork, and research integrity |
| Design future experiments and studies based on the knowledge and research skills development through the research project (Honours project only) |
The aim of this study was to determine factors which impact student satisfaction with the ILP/Honours, by exploring preparation for the project, experiences during their research, supervision and support and learning outcomes particularly research, and other critical skills such as time and project management.
Methods
All year 4 undergraduate medical students who attended the final ILP/Honours project oral presentations in October 2019 were invited to complete an anonymous hard copy questionnaire (see Appendix). The questionnaire was based on a previously validated survey developed at UNSW [16]. Three new questions on research methods and environment, two on choosing topics, and four on research skills and other professional learning outcomes were incorporated into the survey. Questions about specific teaching modules no longer provided were removed. The main questions on overall satisfaction (Q26) and assessment of student perceptions of the value, expectations, recognition, workload, and support provided (Q11–25) remained the same. Information collected included student demographics (age, gender) and research project descriptors (methodology, research environment).
A 4-point Likert scale (Very Satisfied, Satisfied, Dissatisfied, Very Dissatisfied) was used to rank level of satisfaction with the course (Q26). A second 4-point Likert scale (Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree) was used to determine opinions about preparation for (Q4–7), and learning outcomes of, their ILP/Honours year (Q27–37). A 5-point Likert scale (Almost always, Frequently, About half the time, Sometimes, Only rarely) was used to assess statements on the perceived value, expectations, recognition and workload of their research, and the help and support they received from their supervisor and others (Q11–25). Four open-ended questions at the end of the survey provided students with an opportunity to elaborate on preparations for the year, best features of their ILP/Honours project, suggest improvements, and comment on other skills learned during the year.
Analysis
A descriptive analysis was completed on responses to questions on age, gender, course (ILP or Honours), and the methodology and environment of research (qualitative, quantitative, and clinical/non-clinical). Responses to the question on overall satisfaction (Q26) were combined into Satisfied (Very Satisfied and Satisfied) and Dissatisfied (Dissatisfied and Very Dissatisfied). An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) (Maximum Likelihood with direct oblimin rotation) was conducted separately on two groups of questions: those with a 4-point Likert scale (Q4–7 and Q27–37) and those with a 5-point Likert scale (Q11–25). For this exploratory factor analysis scores were calculated for each question using a scale from 0 to 3 for a 4-point Likert scale (0 for Strongly Disagree, 1 for Disagree, 2 for Agree, and 3 for Strongly Agree) and a scale from 0 to 4 for a 5-point Likert scale (0 for Only rarely, 1 for Sometimes, 2 for About half the time, 3 for Frequently, and 4 for Almost Always).
Logistic regression (forward and backward stepwise) was used to identify variables that were independent predictors of student satisfaction and this was reported as estimated odds ratio (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For this analysis, average scores for the factors identified in the EFA were calculated from the individual question scores as described above. The initial predictors in the multivariate analysis were factors yielded from the factor analysis, gender, type of course (ILP or Honours), methodology (qualitative or quantitative), and environment of research (clinical/non-clinical).
Responses to the open-ended questions were analysed using content analysis [18] with authors MPI, SN, and KU working together to group and name codes identified across the qualitative data collected. Once a coding schedule was agreed all responses were coded with some responses allocated to more than one code. Illustrative comments reflecting common codes were identified. The qualitative data was used to corroborate the quantitative findings and add further understanding of student’s views [19].
Results
Descriptive Analysis
The total year 4 cohort comprised 252 students, of whom 142 (56%) were female. Only 5 (2%) of these students were allocated a research project, the rest negotiated their own project with a supervisor of their choice. The questionnaire was completed by 117 students (46% of the total cohort). The response rate for Honours students (23 of 30, 77%) was higher than for ILP students (94 of 222, 42%). The majority of the respondents were female (58%) and in the age range 21–25 years (97.5%). The majority of students reported using quantitative methods (75.5%), whilst 30.5% reported using qualitative methods. Seven students (6%) reported using both quantitative and qualitative research methods in their project. Just under half (43.5%) of the respondents reported they completed a clinical research project.
Reported Learning Outcomes and Overall Satisfaction
The vast majority of students reported they had learnt a lot about the specific research skills and professional skills specified in the course learning outcomes. For example, 94% agreed they had learnt a lot about writing a literature review and 89% that they had learnt a lot about analysing research data (Table 2). The majority of respondents (84%) said they were satisfied or very satisfied with their ILP/Honours year.
Table 2.
Student responses to statements about learning outcomes during ILP/Honours programme
| Learning outcomes | Agree1 (%) n/N |
|---|---|
| Q27 I learnt a lot about ethics of medical research | 60 (68/114) |
| Q28 I learnt a lot about learning to think scientifically | 89 (101/114) |
| Q29 I learnt a lot about quantitative research methods (Quant research only) | 92 (80/87)) |
| Q30 I learnt a lot about qualitative research methods (Qual research only) | 86 (30/35) |
| Q31 I learnt a lot about research in a clinical environment (Clinical research only) | 94 (47/50) |
| Q32 I learnt a lot about how to write a literature review | 94 (107/114) |
| Q33 I learnt a lot about time and project management | 87 (98/113) |
| Q34 I learnt a lot about working in a team | 73 (83/114) |
| Q35 I learnt a lot about assessing evidence in journal articles | 83 (95/114) |
| Q36 I learnt a lot about analysing research data | 89 (101/114) |
| Q37 I learnt a lot about writing a research report | 93 (106/114) |
1Responses to the questions on learning outcomes were combined into 2 groups: Agree (Strongly agree and Agree) and Disagree (Strongly disagree and Disagree)
Factor Analysis
In the exploratory factor analysis, of the 15 questions with a 5-point Likert scale (Q11–25), ten questions loaded onto 2 factors: supervision and support (Factor 1 Q13, 14, 16, 17, 18, and 19) and meaningfulness and experience (Factor 3 Q11, 12, 23, and 24) (Table 3). Of the 11 questions on learning outcomes with a 4-point Likert scale (Q27–37) six questions loaded onto 2 factors: research skills learnt (Factor 2 Q32, 35, 36, and 37) and general skills learnt (Factor 3 Q33 and 34) (Table 4). All factors demonstrated high reliability (0.764–0.927).
Table 3.
Results of exploratory factor analysis (Q11–25)
| Pattern matrixa | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item | Factor | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| Q19 | 0.861 | −0.158 | −0.063 | 0.014 |
| Q16 | 0.858 | −0.104 | −0.058 | −0.045 |
| Q13 | 0.788 | 0.171 | 0.026 | −0.278 |
| Q17 | 0.685 | 0.215 | 0.146 | 0.380 |
| Q18 | 0.684 | −0.112 | 0.192 | 0.118 |
| Q14 | 0.541 | 0.148 | 0.267 | −0.170 |
| Q21 | 0.355 | 0.018 | 0.063 | −0.078 |
| Q20 | 0.553 | −0.645 | 0.267 | 0.069 |
| Q23 | −0.104 | 0.066 | 0.900 | 0.128 |
| Q24 | 0.249 | −0.062 | 0.680 | −0.010 |
| Q11 | 0.048 | −0.081 | 0.520 | −0.321 |
| Q12 | 0.117 | −0.090 | 0.453 | −0.141 |
| Q15 | 0.013 | −0.055 | −0.073 | 0.389 |
| Q22 | 0.048 | 0.181 | 0.048 | 0.383 |
| Q25 | −0.082 | −0.038 | −0.005 | 0.202 |
| Variance | 28.0% | 15.1% | 5.4% | 5.0% |
| Reliability | 0.897 | 0.795 | ||
Extraction method: maximum likelihood
Rotation method: oblimin with Kaiser normalisationa
aRotation converged in 14 iterations
Table 4.
Exploratory factor analysis (Q27–37)
| Pattern matrixa | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Factor | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Q29 | 0.957 | 0.267 | −0.051 |
| Q31 | 0.361 | 0.011 | 0.126 |
| Q30 | −0.285 | 0.281 | 0.031 |
| Q36 | 0.132 | 0.977 | −0.159 |
| Q37 | 0.016 | 0.775 | 0.097 |
| Q35 | 0.026 | 0.702 | 0.138 |
| Q32 | −0.028 | 0.538 | 0.248 |
| Q28 | 0.135 | 0.371 | 0.236 |
| Q33 | −0.049 | −0.070 | 0.853 |
| Q34 | 0.004 | 0.101 | 0.549 |
| Q27 | 0.103 | 0.054 | 0.284 |
| Variance | 16.70% | 26.31% | 6.56% |
| Reliability | 0.927 | 0.764 | |
Extraction method: maximum likelihood
Rotation method: oblimin with Kaiser normalisationa
aRotation converged in 6 iterations
Multivariate Analysis
In order to determine which factors contributed to student satisfaction, nine variables were included in the initial step of the stepwise regression: gender, type of course (ILP/Honours), methodology (qualitative or quantitative), and environment of research (clinical/non-clinical) and the four factors identified in the factor analysis. The results of the stepwise regression analysis (for both forward and backward methods) demonstrated that three factors had a significant impact on student satisfaction: Supervision and support (OR = 2.587, 95% CI 1.237–5.413; p < 0.12), Meaningfulness and experience (OR = 2.506, 95% CI 1.100–5.708; p < 0.29), and Research skills learnt (OR 2.782, 95% CI 1.428–5.421; p < 0.003). Neither gender, type of course, qualitative or quantitative methodology, environment of research, nor general skills learnt had any significant impact on student satisfaction (Table 5).
Table 5.
Odds ratios, 95% CI, and p values for variables independently associated with student satisfaction on multivariate analysis using stepwise logistic regression analysis
| Variables in the equationa | B | S.E | Wald | df | Sig | Exp(B) | 95% CI for EXP(B) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||||||
| Supervision.support | 0.951 | 0.377 | 6.369 | 1 | 0.012 | 2.587 | 1.237 | 5.413 |
| Meaningfulness.experience | 0.919 | 0.420 | 4.784 | 1 | 0.029 | 2.506 | 1.100 | 5.708 |
| Research.skills.learnt | 1.023 | 0.340 | 9.044 | 1 | 0.003 | 2.782 | 1.428 | 5.421 |
| Constant | −8.317 | 2.121 | 15.370 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||
aVariables entered on step 1: Supervision.Support, Meaningfulness.experience, Research.skills.learnt, General.skills.learnt, Course, Gender, Q8.rec, Q9.rec, and Q10.rec
Qualitative Analysis
There was overlap in the feedback received across the open-ended questions. The research team therefore focused on analysis of the open-ended questions on student’s views of the best aspects of the year and what could be improved to provide further insights to the quantitative findings.
There were 79 students who responded to the question ‘what were the best features of the ILP/Honours experience’ and identification of patterns across the responses resulted in 6 codes or categories of response. The qualitative responses support the quantitative findings, with the most common open-ended responses relating to support, as well as meaningfulness of the experience. There were 25 comments related to ‘Faculty support’ which included convenor and administrative support and online modules and 21 on ‘Collaboration and team-work’ which included being part of a research team, networking, and supervisor support and advice, for example, ‘Great supervisor, feeling valued, and being part of the team’. Additional insights were obtained about students valuing ‘Learning about research skills’ (19 coded) and ‘Independent learning’ (15 coded) as part of the programme, for example, ‘Having to interact with new people, interdisciplinary, and thinking for yourself’. Ten comments were coded to ‘Practical real-world experience’, for example, ‘Speaking [with] patients and learning about their lived experience’.
There were 78 students who responded to the question ‘the ILP/Honours experience could be improved by?’ and identification of patterns across the responses resulted in four codes or categories of response. The open-ended responses to this question also support the quantitative findings with the most common open-ended responses in codes that related to appropriate supervision, support in more formal skill development, and meaningfulness. There were 26 comments coded to ‘More formal skill development’ with a common request for research method training throughout the year and some requesting a small coursework component to standardise teaching. There were 21 comments coded to ‘Supervisor training, selection, and availability’ with many requesting supervisors be made more aware of what was expected in their role, some noting that supervision was not equal with some receiving poor supervision, for example, ‘Ensure the supervisor well equipped and trained to provide adequate support to the student’. Additional insights were obtained about the ‘Structure of the year and assessment’ (31 coded) including wanting more clarity about time commitments, addressing isolation, ensuring marking is appropriate to individual projects, and ensuring clinical exposure throughout the year. Some examples of common types of comments included ‘(need to) retain clinical knowledge’, ‘assessed to fit the project’, and ‘less isolation and more support’. There were 10 comments about ‘Clarity of purpose of the year’ including the need to better explain possible careers in research and making the outcome more meaningful by having the year lead to credit for a Masters’ degree for example.
Discussion
The findings of this study demonstrate a high level of student satisfaction in a dedicated, mandatory research year for undergraduate medical students at UNSW and identify several key factors that are critical in students’ satisfaction. The vast majority of students reported they had learnt a lot about the research skills specified in the course learning outcomes. Research skills learnt during the ILP/Honours program at UNSW was also one of the key factors contributing to student satisfaction in this survey. The ILP/Honours programme at UNSW has clear learning outcomes and supports active learning of medical research skills amongst students by requiring students to present their literature review and research proposal partway through their project, then proceed to data collection and analysis before presenting research findings in a final written report and an oral presentation. Sawarynski et al. [20] have described a process of intentionally describing and monitoring the development of both research skills and professional practice skills in the context of a longitudinal research programme at Oakland University. In a recent review Lee et al. described the difficulty in evaluating best practice in medical student research programmes because of the variety of learning outcomes across different programmes and the lack of studies of higher order outcomes such as critical thinking skills [13]. These higher level learning outcomes are difficult to measure. Results in the current study are based on student self-reports, but they are comparable with some reports from programmes of ‘increased student confidence’ in many basic research skills as a result of student research projects [6, 15].
In this study, the satisfaction rate of 84% is consistent with satisfaction rates of 74–85% for elective research programmes, a satisfaction rate that is considerably higher than the rates of 45–51% satisfaction reported for mandatory research programmes [15]. One of the major challenges reported with elective research programmes, however, is limited time to complete research projects whilst completing full time medical studies [4, 5]. This is a potential advantage of mandatory programmes where time for research programmes can be scheduled. There have been published reports of mandatory programmes where students conduct their research in parallel with attending full time classes over either a 2-year period or the whole 4-year period of a post graduate medical programme [3, 7, 8, 11, 21]. Lack of time to dedicate to the research project remains one of the important challenges in these programmes [7, 21]. In contrast, the ILP/Honours research programme at UNSW occurs in a dedicated 9-month period during the fourth year of a 6-year undergraduate degree. Similarly, at Duke University (USA) the student research project is conducted in a dedicated 10-month block in year 3 of a 4-year post graduate programme [22]. A survey of students’ experience at Duke revealed that 95% rated the programme as excellent or very good [11]. However, in this report from Duke, as in other dedicated research blocks in post graduate programmes [7], there was concern that in a 4-year programme, time for teaching basic medical science may be compromised. Regardless, this shows that a mandatory research programme can deliver high satisfaction rates when conducted in a dedicated time without competing course requirements.
The satisfaction rate of 84% of students in this study is higher than the satisfaction rate of 65% reported in the previous survey of the ILP/Honours programme at UNSW completed nearly 10 years ago [16]. The increase in satisfaction rates perhaps reflects the increasing number of students who negotiated their own projects, and this in turn may be due to improved support from supervisors and the faculty as the programme matured. In the previous survey, 30% of students had projects allocated to them and these students reported significantly lower rates of satisfaction than those who had negotiated their own projects [16]. This compares to only 2% of students in the present study who were allocated topics. Students who do negotiate their own project are more likely to find it meaningful. This is reflected in our survey results, where meaningfulness and experience was the second factor strongly linked to student satisfaction. Having the opportunity to choose or negotiate a project may help mandatory programmes succeed in providing a more meaningful learning experience and higher satisfaction rates. Some authors have also commented that implementing research programmes may not be the only way to teach students research skills [23] and others have commented on the potential negative effect of pressures on students to publish in order to boost their curriculum vitae and enhance further career opportunities [24]. Faculty support and frequent review is critical to the successful implementation of student research projects.
In order to negotiate projects, students need faculty support and active mentoring from supervisors. This is reflected in student’s comments in the open questions that convenor and faculty support were one of the best features of their ILP/Honours year. The importance of supervision and support was also the third factor found to contribute to student satisfaction in the survey, and this aligns with previous reports that “student-mentor” interactions were key to optimising medical student research programmes [15]. The role of the supervisor is to provide knowledge in the project area, to clarify outputs, and to create an environment where the student becomes part of a team. Their ongoing support helps to combat isolation and engages and motivates students. This support is particularly critical in undergraduate programmes. This has been acknowledged in reviews of other Honours programmes in Australia, where the transition from an undergraduate programme to a self-directed research focussed year requires considerable adjustment [25, 26]. Providing clarity about expectations and education about “what research is” can help students fully benefit from involvement in research projects [27]. Placing the ILP/Honours programme at UNSW in the fourth year of a 6-year undergraduate degree also gives students some exposure to basic medical training and perhaps more maturity to be able to successfully negotiate with a potential supervisor.
Supervisors also need support, and this was one of the key student suggestions on improving the programme. Targeted training would ensure that all supervisors of ILP/Honours students are aware of basics of the year structure, expected outcomes, and their role. Successful student-supervisor relationships require regular interactions and the development of trust in the context of a working relationship and may be critical in leading to long-term engagement in research for the student.
One of the strengths of this study is that we have been able to follow up on a previous survey at UNSW completed nearly 10 years ago and document improvement in student experience. These two studies are the only published reports we can find of medical student research programmes from Australian medical schools. Another strength of this study is that we could document learning outcomes and determine the impact of these and other factors on student satisfaction. Although this survey is only capturing subjective student perceptions of learning outcomes, there are few other studies documenting the learning outcomes achieved by medical student research programmes. One of the limitations is our sample size of 46% of the whole cohort. Whilst this is a good response for voluntary participation it may not accurately represent satisfaction rates of the whole cohort.
Conclusion
Medical students can learn critical research skills and achieve high rates of satisfaction within a mandatory, undergraduate research programme that provides a focused time dedicated to the student research project. Factors critical to student satisfaction include student perceptions that they have learnt some basic research skills, the development of a supportive relationship with a research mentor to supervise their research, and administrative and educational support from the faculty. In a programme where such support structures have developed more students are able to implement a research project in a field of interest to them, and that further contributes to student satisfaction.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Declarations
Ethical Approval
Ethical approval for the conduct of this research was given by the UNSW Human Research Ethics Advisory Panel (Ethics approval number HC 190,860).
Informed Consent
Potential participants who were approached were provided with a participant information sheet explaining the study and invited to complete and return the survey. They were advised that participation was voluntary. Those who completed and returned the survey were deemed to have given implied consent.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Contributor Information
Kerry Uebel, Email: k.uebel@unsw.edu.au.
Maha Pervaz Iqbal, Email: m.pervaziqbal@unsw.edu.au.
Jane Carland, Email: jane.carland@svha.org.au.
Greg Smith, Email: g.smith@unsw.edu.au.
Md Saiful Islam, Email: mdsaiful.islam@unsw.edu.au.
Boaz Shulruf, Email: b.shulruf@unsw.edu.au.
Sally Nathan, Email: s.nathan@unsw.edu.au.
References
- 1.Laidlaw A, Aiton J, Struthers J, Guild S. Developing research skills in medical students: AMEE Guide No 69. Med Teach. 2012;34:e754–e771. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.704438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Hurst JH, Barrett KJ, Kelly MS, Staples BB, McGann KA, Cunningham CK, et al. Cultivating research skills during clinical training to promote pediatric-scientist development. Pediatrics. 2019;144(2). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 3.Ogunyemi D, Bazargan M, Norris K, Jones-Quaidoo S, Wolf K, Edelstein R, et al. The development of a mandatory medical thesis in an urban medical school. Teach Learn Med. 2005;17(4):363–369. doi: 10.1207/s15328015tlm1704_9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Hunskaar S, Breivik J, Siebke M, Tommeras K, Figenschau K, Hansen JB. Evaluation of the medical student research programme in Norwegian medical schools. A survey of students and supervisors. BMC Med Educ. 2009;9:43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 5.Nikkar-Esfahani A, Jamjoom AA, Fitzgerald JE. Extracurricular participation in research and audit by medical students: opportunities, obstacles, motivation and outcomes. Med Teach. 2012;34(5):e317–e324. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.670324. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Alamri Y, Currie W, Magner K, Al-Busaidi IS, Wilkinson TJ, Beckert L. Publication rates of, and attitudes toward, summer research projects: 10-year experience from a single institution in New Zealand. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2019;10:263–271. doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S198789. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Gotterer GS, O'Day D, Miller BM. The Emphasis Program: a scholarly concentrations program at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. Acad Med. 2010;85(11):1717–1724. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181e7771b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Smith F, Harasym P, Mandin H, Lorscheider F. Development and evaluation of a research project program for medical students at the University of Calgary Faculty of Medicine. Acad Med. 2001;76(2):189–194. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200102000-00023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Dyrbye L, Davidson L, Cook D. Publications and presentations resulting from required research by students at Mayo medical school 1976–2003. Med Educ. 2008;83(6):604–609. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181723108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Conroy MB, Shaffiey S, Jones S, Hackam DJ, Sowa G, Winger DG, et al. Scholarly research projects benefit medical students' research productivity and residency choice: outcomes from the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. Acad Med. 2018;93(11):1727–1731. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002328. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Laskowitz D, Drucker R, Parsonnet J, Cross P, Gesundheit N. Engaging students in dedicated research and scholarship during medical school: the long term experiences at Duke and Stanford. Acad Med. 2010;85(3):419–428. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181ccc77a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Rosenblatt RA, Desnick L, Corrigan C, Keerbs A. The evolution of a required research program for medical students at the University of Washington School of Medicine. Acad Med. 2006;81(10):877–881. doi: 10.1097/01.ACM.0000238240.04371.52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Lee MGY, Hu WCY, Bilszta JLC. Determining expected research skills of medical students on graduation: a systematic review. Medical Science Educator. 2020;30(4):1465–1479. doi: 10.1007/s40670-020-01059-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Cohen BL, Friedman E, Zier K. Publications by students doing a year of full-time research: what are realistic expectations? Am J Med. 2008;121(6):545–548. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.03.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Chang Y, Ramnanan CJ. A review of literature on medical students and scholarly research: experiences, attitudes, and outcomes. Acad Med. 2015;90(8):1162–1173. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Hunt JE, Scicluna H, McNeil HP. Development and evaluation of a mandatory research experience in a medical education program: the Independent Learning Project at UNSW. Medical Science Educator. 2011;21(1):78–85. doi: 10.1007/BF03341601. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Uebel K, Pervaz Iqbal M, Adelstein BA. A pragmatic approach to promoting research skills in all medical students. Med Educ. 2020;54(5):445–446. doi: 10.1111/medu.14097. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Liamputtong P, Ezzy D. Applications of qualitative research methods. Qualitative Research Methods. 2nd ed. Melbourne Oxford University Press; 2005. p. 259–61.
- 19.Bazeley P, Kemp L. Mosaics, triangles, and DNA: metaphors for integrated analysis in mixed methods research. J Mixed Methods Res. 2011;6(1):55–72. doi: 10.1177/1558689811419514. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Sawarynski KE, Baxa DM, Folberg R. Embarking on a journey of discovery: developing transitional skill sets through a scholarly concentration program. Teach Learn Med. 2019;31(2):195–206. doi: 10.1080/10401334.2018.1490184. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Boninger M, Troen P, Green E, Borkan J, Lance-Jones C, Humphrey A, et al. Implementation of a longitudinal mentored scholarly project: an approach at two medical schools. Acad Med. 2010;85:429–437. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181ccc96f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Blazer D, Bradford W, Reilly C. Duke's 3rd year: a 35-year retrospective. Teach Learn Med. 2001;13(3):192–198. doi: 10.1207/S15328015TLM1303_9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Cheung BMY. Medical student research: is it necessary and beneficial? Postgrad Med J. 2018;94(1112):317. doi: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2018-135834. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Mahalingam J, Khatri C, Fitzgerald JE. Pressure of academic publishing for medical students: a student's perspective. Postgrad Med J. 2018;94(1112):367–368. doi: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2017-135440. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Kiley M, Boud D, Manathunga C, Cantwell R. Honouring the incomparable: honours in Australian universities. High Educ. 2011;62(5):619–633. doi: 10.1007/s10734-011-9409-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Allan C. Exploring the experience of ten Australian Honours students. High Educ Res Dev. 2011;30(4):421–433. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2010.524194. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Murdoch-Eaton D, Drewery S, Elton S, Emmerson C, Marshall M, Smith JA, et al. What do medical students understand by research and research skills? Identifying research opportunities within undergraduate projects. Med Teach. 2010;32(3):e152–e160. doi: 10.3109/01421591003657493. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.