Determinants of research productivity during postgraduate medical education: a structured review

Correlation between research productivity during and after orthopaedic surgery training

Background

Research experience is mandatory for all Orthopaedic Surgery residency programs. Although the allocation of required protected time and resources varies from program to program, the underlying importance of research remains consistent with mutual benefit to both residents and the program and faculty. Authorship and publications have become the standard metric used to evaluate academic success. This study aimed to determine if there is a correlation between the research productivity of Orthopaedic Surgery trainees and their subsequent research productivity as attending Orthopaedic Surgeons.

Methods

Using the University of Mississippi Orthopaedic Residency Program Research Productivity Rank List, 30 different Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Programs were analyzed for the names of every graduating surgeon in their 2013 class. PubMed Central was used to screen all 156 physicians and collect all publications produced by them between 2008 and August 2022. Results were separated into two categories: Publications during training and Publications post-training.

Results

As defined above, 156 Surgeons were analyzed for publications during training and post-training. The mean number of publications was 7.02 ± 17.819 post-training vs. 2.47 ± 4.313 during training, P < 0.001. The range of publication post-training was 0-124 vs. 0-30 during training. Pearson correlation between the two groups resulted in a value of 0.654, P < 0.001.

Conclusion

Higher research productivity while training correlates to higher productivity post-training, but overall Orthopaedic surgeons produce more research after training than during. With the growing importance of research, more mentorship, time, and resources must be dedicated to research to instill and foster greater participation while in training.

Publication outcomes among intensive care trainees

There is a paucity of literature describing the research productivity among trainees in intensive care medicine. We sought to examine the occurrence and determinants of successful publication outcomes associated with intensive care training. The study cohort consisted of all individuals admitted to fellowship of the College of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand (CICM) from 2012 to 2019. The primary outcome measure of this study was manuscripts indexed on PubMed within one year after and four years prior to admittance to CICM fellowship. Four hundred and eighty-five fellows were identified of whom 216 (45%) had at least one publication; 129 (27%) had one, 34 (7%) had two, 21 (4%) had three and 32 (7%) had four or more publications. Overall 138 (28%) fellows had at least one publication that was likely associated with their mandatory CICM training project for which they were first (n = 110; 80%) and/or corresponding (n = 72; 52%) author in the majority of cases. Overall 107 different senior/mentor authors were identified, with 13 individuals supporting more than one publication. Although gender and location at the time of fellowship award were not associated, location of receipt of medical degree, shorter time period between medical school graduation and fellowship award, more recent year of award, and completion of medical degree/fellowship in the same geographical region were associated with project publication. A minority of CICM fellows have PubMed-indexed publications related to their training. Further efforts are warranted to better define the determinants of successful project publication to optimise future opportunities.

Changing the Culture: Increasing and Sustaining Anesthesiology Resident Physician Publication Rates

Background

Academic inquiry is foundational to the advancement of medicine and resident training and must be demonstrated to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Past attempts at increasing publication rates have failed to identify educational best practice models. Our aim was to increase resident publication rates via culture and value changes that are universally implementable, affordable, effective, and sustainable.

Methods

In 2018, a multifaceted initiative was implemented to shift departmental values and foster a culture of academic productivity. This culture change stressed the value of scientific publication through frequent, consistent messaging from department leaders. In addition, residents were provided the freedom to choose their scholarly activities. In this retrospective cohort innovation, resident authors were identified for 4 academic years before and after the intervention and publication rates were determined (2014-2018 vs 2018-2022). Resident authors and publications per resident per year were compared using descriptive statistics and Student t test.

Results

The pre- and postintervention groups included 38 and 37 residents, respectively. Resident-authored publications increased from 7 preintervention to 24 postintervention, representing 343% of baseline. Mean ± SD publications per resident per year similarly increased 357% from 0.183 ± 0.16 to 0.654 ± 0.11 postintervention. Unpaired t test analysis demonstrated a significant difference in total publications per year (P = .002) and authorship rate (P = .003).

Conclusions

A multifaceted academic initiative resulted in a threefold increase in resident publication rates. This initiative demonstrates that local advocacy by leaders, freedom of choice for authors, and supportive departmental culture are driving factors in publication rates.

Introducing trainees to research using an online, asynchronous course

Introduction

Research is an important aspect of many students' training. However, formal research training is rarely included in curricula. Thus, we developed an online, asynchronous series of modules to introduce trainees to multiple topics that are relevant to the conduct of research.

Methods

Research 101 was utilized by first-year medical students and undergraduate students conducting mentored research projects. Students' knowledge, confidence, and satisfaction were assessed using pre- and post-module surveys with five-point Likert scaled questions, open-ended text responses, and a final quiz.

Results

Pre-module survey results showed that learners felt most confident with the Conducting a literature search and Race and racism in medicine modules and least confident with the Submitting an Institutional Review Board protocol at UC module. Post-module survey responses were significantly increased compared to pre-module results for all modules and questions (p < 0.0001). The response to "The content of this module met my needs" was endorsed across all modules (84.9% "yes" responses). A final quiz of 25 multiple-choice questions was completed by 92 participants who received a median score of 21. Content analysis of open-ended post-module survey responses identified several strengths and opportunities for improvement in course content and instructional methods.

Conclusions

These data demonstrate that significant learning resulted from completion of Research 101, as post-module survey scores were significantly higher than pre-module survey scores for all modules and questions. Final quiz scores were positive but also highlighted opportunity for additional trainee learning and will guide evolution of future modules.

Lessons learnt from a scientific peer-review training programme designed to support research capacity and professional development in a global community

High-quality peer-reviewer training open to researchers across the globe has the potential to improve the published literature, however, this type of training is not widely available. In this paper, we describe an online peer-reviewer training programme, highlight its effectiveness in building peer review and writing skills, and discuss challenges and lessons learnt. This training programme, open to researchers across the globe, acquaints participants with challenges to and inequities in publishing and educates them about writing effective peer reviews. A focal point is how to provide specific and respectful feedback to help authors get accepted for peer review at an academic journal. Forty-nine participants from or residing in six continents completed the training. All programme evaluation respondents agreed that the orientation helped them gain a better understanding of their role as a peer reviewer at Pre-Publication Support Service. Most agreed that the training was helpful in improving their peer-review skills, and that the training was helpful in improving their writing skills. Participants wanted more networking and collaboration opportunities with other peer reviewers, inclusion of a qualitatively researched example paper and improved communication about the required time commitment. Our online programme with multiple time options was geographically inclusive but internet connectivity was challenging for some participants. Peer-reviewer training programmes can help researchers build their peer review and writing skills and enhance participants' understanding of disparities in publishing. Integrating a geographically diverse group of researchers has the potential to enrich the discussions and learning in such a programme.

The Sources of Research Self-Efficacy in Postgraduate Nursing Students: A Qualitative Study

Postgraduate students are required to undertake a series of research assignments. Research self-efficacy is regarded as the sense of faith in their ability to accomplish research tasks. However, it is unclear how research self-efficacy plays a role in second-year nursing postgraduate students who have been enrolled for a period of time and have not yet met graduation requirements. This study aims to explore the sources of second-year nursing postgraduate students’ research self-efficacy in response to research tasks. A descriptive phenomenological approach was used in this study. A total of 13 second-year nursing postgraduate students participated in semi-structured interviews using a purposive sampling method. Content analysis was applied to analyze the interview data after verbatim transcription. Participants stated that they had gained a great deal of support but were somewhat less confident. Three themes were refined: (a) intrinsic sources of research self-efficacy (differences in cognitive ability, internal driving force, with successful experience), (b) extrinsic sources of research self-efficacy (family support, peer support, mentor support), and (c) unmet support may cause low self-confidence (inadequate self-support, inadequate extrinsic-support, lack of motivation from successful experiences). The postgraduate students in this study accepted the objectives of the master’s training and actively practiced research exploration. They were motivated to persevere through their internal and external support, albeit with some negative aspects that deserve our attention. Interventions for postgraduate students’ cognitive awareness, constant support during their postgraduate career, and finally, guiding summaries may have a positive impact on their self-efficacy.