A survey study examining the motivations, concerns, and perspectives of medical students engaging in neurosurgical research

An Evidence-Based Framework for Medical Student Research Training

Background

As research becomes an increasingly important component of medical education, there is greater emphasis on incorporating programmatic enhancements to the research experience. This study builds a logic model to summarize research program inputs, outputs, and outcomes from research-oriented medical schools across the country, providing a framework that institutions can use to design and improve their medical student research training programs.

Methods

Between November 2021 and February 2022, we administered a survey assessing institutional characteristics, research offerings, curriculum, funding, and student scholarly products to the medical schools ranked 1-50 in research in 2021 by US News and World Report. Results were compiled in the form of a logic model.

Results

Thirty-seven institutions (72.5%) responded. Common program inputs included personnel such as at least one funded program director (97.3%), while funding for medical student research activities was highly variable (8-72%). There was much less funding for faculty research mentors (2.7%), advisors (18.9%), and teaching faculty (29.7%). Common outputs included a medical student research office or program (97.3%), formal research curricula (83.8%), and services and programs such as research day (91.9%). The most common outcomes tracked were publications (48.6%), presentations/posters (43.2%), student participation (29.7%), and completion of a research requirement (29.7%).

Conclusions

Common themes in medical student research training programs may be conceptualized with a logic model that schools can use to develop, evaluate, and iteratively improve their programs. Institutions should consider their desired program outcomes prior to designing inputs (e.g., funding, personnel) and outputs (e.g., curriculum, training).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-024-02001-3.

Systematic Review of Research, Mentorship, and Career Resources for Medical Students Pursuing Neurosurgical Training

BACKGROUND

Medical students are important team members and future healthcare providers in neurosurgery or other medical fields. We performed a systematic review evaluating studies assessing medical student guidance, mentorship, and career development in neurosurgery. The study aimed to identify the best practices and acknowledge gaps requiring improvement.

METHODS

A systematic review of 586 research studies evaluating important aspects of medical student career development in neurosurgery was performed. The studies were analyzed for evidence supporting specific strategies to foster career development.

RESULTS

A total of 45 studies were identified and categorized into 8 categories: 1) medical student interest groups; 2) student fellowships and institutional programs; 3) research and observership funding; 4) medical student research and scholarship; 5) student-led interest groups; 6) student mentorship; 7) educational resources; and 8) diversity, equity, and inclusion for medical students. Studies supported the significant positive effects of career resources for medical students, which often resulted in higher publication quantities, increased interest in the field, and greater ease of matriculation into a neurosurgical residency. One central gap included limited formal opportunities at many institutions, including medical schools without neurosurgery programs. Additional gaps were an absent structure for many forms of mentorship and delayed engagement of medical students in neurosurgical training, which significantly affects career interests. The currently available resources for these aspects of career development are listed.

CONCLUSIONS

These studies highlight the current endeavors to encourage medical student careers. However, ample gaps and missed opportunities were also identified. Further work at both institutional and national levels is needed to improve the current environment.