Addressing the Scholarly Activity Requirements for Residents: One Program's Solution

An Expert Consensus of Acceptable Scholarly Activities in Emergency Medicine Residency Training Programs

BACKGROUND

Scholarly activity (SA) has been interpreted inconsistently between allopathic and osteopathic emergency medicine programs, but the acceptable methods to achieve this requirement must be re-evaluated, particularly in the light of the merger of allopathic and osteopathic programs to form the Single Accreditation System. This paper describes the results of inquiry from a series of meetings of the Research, Scholarly Activity, and Innovation section of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to describe differences between allopathic and osteopathic emergency medicine programs and their SA requirements. The authors set out to scrutinize different forms of SA on the basis of the venerated models of Boyer and Glassick.

METHODS

The authors conducted a systematic qualitative review of the SA models in academic literature using the criteria of Boyer and Glassick. The authors then compared the allopathic and osteopathic emergency medicine SA requirements and made recommendations about how to evaluate proposed SAs and rated various forms of SA on the basis of the Boyer and Glassick models.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Allopathic programs have required "scholarly activity," which includes many types of activities, while osteopathic programs have traditionally required "research." Traditionally, allopathic programs have provided more structural support and faculty involvement in resident SA than have osteopathic programs.

CONCLUSION

Objective criteria, such as those of Boyer and Glassick, should be used to determine if a given activity is truly scholarly. A residency which determines that a proposed activity meets these objective criteria is less likely to be cited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), and more likely to fulfill the SA requirements. The authors propose the Individual Scholarly Activity Plan as a method to set agreed-upon goals and track resident and faculty progress towards completion and facilitate career advancement among both residents and faculty.

All of whom? Limitations encountered using All of Us Researcher Workbench in a Primary Care residents secondary data analysis research training block

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this case report is to detail experiences and challenges experienced in the training of Primary Care residents in secondary analysis using All of Us Researcher Workbench. At our large, urban safety net hospital, Primary Care/Internal Medicine residents in their third year undergo a research intensive block, the Research Practicum, where they work as a team to conduct secondary data analysis on a dataset with faculty facilitation. In 2023, this research block focused on use of the All of Us Researcher Workbench for secondary data analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two groups of 5 residents underwent training to access the All of Us Researcher Workbench, and each group explored available data with a faculty facilitator and generated original research questions. Two blocks of residents successfully completed their research blocks and created original presentations on "social isolation and A1C" levels and "medical discrimination and diabetes management."

RESULTS

Departmental faculty were satisfied with the depth of learning and data exploration. In focus groups, some residents noted that for those without interest in performing research, the activity felt extraneous to their career goals, while others were glad for the opportunity to publish. In both blocks, residents highlighted dissatisfaction with the degree to which the All of Us Researcher Workbench was representative of patients they encounter in a large safety net hospital.

DISCUSSION

Using the All of Us Researcher Workbench provided residents with an opportunity to explore novel questions in a massive data source. Many residents however noted that because the population described in the All of Us Researcher Workbench appeared to be more highly educated and less racially diverse than patients they encounter in their practice, research may be hard to generalize in a community health context. Additionally, given that the data required knowledge of 1 of 2 code-based data analysis languages (R or Python) and work within an idiosyncratic coding environment, residents were heavily reliant on a faculty facilitator to assist with analysis.

CONCLUSION

Using the All of Us Researcher Workbench for research training allowed residents to explore novel questions and gain first-hand exposure to opportunities and challenges in secondary data analysis.

National needs assessment of emergency medicine faculty regarding scholarly activity practices and support

Objectives

We aimed to assess the attitudes and perceptions of scholarly activity (SA) practices among emergency medicine (EM) physicians who are engaged in training residents. This study examined the belief and need for modern-day SA, potential barriers, and department resources provided.

Methods

We conducted a descriptive cross-sectional survey study of EM physicians across the United States identified from the American College of Emergency Physicians and American College of Osteopathic Physicians directories. The survey consisted of 18 items regarding demographics, attitude toward SA, department support, and questions regarding residency programs.

Results

A total of 660 survey recipients completed the survey out of a possible pool of 4296 individuals (15% response rate), of which 530 (80%) indicated they were core faculty. Of core faculty, 428 (80.8%) were part of an allopathic program, whereas 102 (19.2%) were part of an osteopathic program. Department support was provided for protected time (385; 58.3%), research staff (346; 52.4%), Institutional Review Board preparation (240; 36.4%), and biostatistics (314; 47.6%). Of all the institutional roles, the largest percentage (82/125, 65.6%) of chair/vice chair/associate chairs strongly agreed or agreed (score of 5 or 4 of 5) with the statement, "Overall, I am satisfied with the scholarly support provided by my department." There was no difference in agreement with this statement between respondents in an allopathic versus osteopathic program (210/428, 49.1% allopathic; 45/102, 44.1% osteopathic).

Conclusion

There is a need for increased departmental support for SA. To optimally implement the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) SA requirements into strategy and action, the ACGME should consider providing EM residency programs with an outline of best SA practices to foster a uniform consensus across academic institutions.

Attitudes on data reuse among internal medicine residents

Background

NYU Langone Health offers a collaborative research block for PGY3 Primary Care residents that employs a secondary data analysis methodology. As discussions of data reuse and secondary data analysis have grown in the data library literature, we sought to understand what attitudes internal medicine residents at a large urban academic medical center had around secondary data analysis. This case report describes a novel survey on resident attitudes around data sharing.

Methods

We surveyed internal medicine residents in three tracks: Primary Care (PC), Categorical, and Clinician-Investigator (CI) tracks as part of a larger pilot study on implementation of a research block. All three tracks are in our institution's internal medicine program. In discussions with residency directors and the chief resident, the term "secondary data analysis" was chosen over "data reuse" due to this being more familiar to clinicians, but examples were given to define the concept.

Results

We surveyed a population of 162 residents, and 67 residents responded, representing a 41.36% response rate. Strong majorities of residents exhibited positive views of secondary data analysis. Moreover, in our sample, those with exposure to secondary data analysis research opined that secondary data analysis takes less time and is less difficult to conduct compared to the other residents without curricular exposure to secondary analysis.

Discussion

The survey reflects that residents believe secondary data analysis is worthwhile and this highlights opportunities for data librarians. As current residents matriculate into professional roles as clinicians, educators, and researchers, libraries have an opportunity to bolster support for data curation and education.

"Not just a checkbox": A qualitative study of the resident scholarly experience

Objectives

Scholarship is a requirement of residency training; however, the scholarly productivity of trainees is highly variable. The purpose of this study was to explore the perspectives of residents who have been highly productive in scholarship.

Methods

We performed a qualitative study using a constructivist-interpretivist paradigm and conducted semistructured interviews at seven Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited emergency medicine residency programs in the United States. We included sites of diverse locations and training formats (PGY-1 to -4 vs. PGY-1 to -3). Program leadership identified residents with high levels of scholarly productivity at their institutions. We used purposive sampling to seek out residents with diversity in gender and PGY level. Two researchers independently performed a thematic analysis of interview transcripts. Discrepancies were resolved through in-depth discussion and negotiated consensus.

Results

We invited 14 residents and all consented to be interviewed. Residents felt scholarship enhanced their knowledge and skills, grew collaborative networks, and provided personal fulfillment and external rewards. Scholarship positively impacted their careers by focusing their professional interests and informing career decisions. Participants identified individual and institutional facilitators of success including personal prior knowledge and skills, project management skills, mindset, protected time, mentorship, and leadership support. Challenges to conducting scholarship included lack of time, expertise, and resources. Participants acknowledged that participating in scholarly activities was hard work and recommended that residents seek out quality mentorship, work on projects that they are passionate, start early, and be persistent in their efforts. Participants' advice to faculty supporting resident scholarship included recommendations to allow resident autonomy of projects, provide scholarly opportunities, and be responsive to trainee needs.

Conclusions

Participants in this study highlighted benefits of participating in scholarly activity as well as challenges and strategies for success. These results can inform residencies seeking to enhance the scholarly experience of trainees.

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

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.

Rapid exponential increase in neurosurgery departmental scholarly output following an intensive research initiative

There has been extensive research into methods of increasing academic departmental scholarly activity (DSA) through targeted interventions. Residency programmes are responsible for ensuring sufficient scholarly opportunities for residents. We sought to discover the outcomes of an intensive research initiative (IRI) on DSA in our department in a short-time interval. IRI was implemented, consisting of multiple interventions, to rapidly produce an increase in DSA through resident/medical student faculty engagement. We compare pre-IRI (8 years) and post-IRI (2 years) research products (RP), defined as the sum of oral presentations and publications, to evaluate the IRI. The study was performed in 2020. The IRI resulted in an exponential increase in DSA with an annual RP increase of 350% from 2017 (3 RP) to 2018 (14 RP), with another 92% from 2018 (14 RP) to 2019 (27 RP). RP/year exponentially increased from 2.1/year to 10.5/year for residents and 0.5/year to 10/year for medical students, resulting in a 400% and 1900% increase in RP/year, respectively. The common methods in literature to increase DSA included instituting protected research time (23.8%) and research curriculum (21.5%). We share our department's increase in DSA over a short 2-year period after implementing our IRI. Our goal in reporting our experience is to provide an example for departments that need to rapidly increase their DSA. By reporting the shortest time interval to achieve exponential DSA growth, we hope this example can support programmes in petitioning hospitals and medical colleges for academic support resources.

Building a Culture of Scholarship Within a Family Medicine Department: a Successful Eight-Year Journey of Incremental Interventions Following a Historical Perspective of Family Medicine Research

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Family medicine (FM), a discipline that eschewed worshiping the ivory tower of research in favor of patient care, has struggled with its role in the world of scholarly activity. FM residencies mirror this conflict despite the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's requirements for creating an environment of inquiry and scholarship. Because of this, the faculty within the Department of Family and Community Health (dFCH) at Marshall University changed its culture of scholarship.

METHODS

A faculty-driven needs-based assessment of the department's strengths and deficiencies for enhancing scholarship was conducted. A three-pronged approach of creating motivation, developing an infrastructure, and consolidating resources was created. This process was periodically re-evaluated and augmented. Departmental scholarly activity, defined as both publications and presentations, was tracked for an eight year period.

RESULTS

Scholarly output increased by 483% (6 to 29) in year 1 and 10-fold by year 8 (6 to 60) from the pre-culture change baseline. This represents one- and eight-year increases for both publications (4 to 6 and 4 to 18 respectively) and presentations (2 to 23 and 2 to 42 respectively). Scholarly involvement became more widespread among faculty (n = 30) and increased linearly for residents (n = 19) and students (n = 13).

CONCLUSION

Through a series of needs-based interventions with consistent reanalysis, the dFCH changed its culture of scholarship. Understanding that other departments have similar competing interests to negotiate, the principles of creating motivation, developing research infrastructure, and consolidating resources could be successfully applied elsewhere.

A realist synthesis of quality improvement curricula in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education: what works, for whom, and in what contexts?

BACKGROUND

With the integration of quality improvement (QI) into competency-based models of physician training, there is an increasing requirement for medical students and residents to demonstrate competence in QI. There may be factors that commonly facilitate or inhibit the desired outcomes of QI curricula in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education. The purpose of this review was to synthesise attributes of QI curricula in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education associated with curricular outcomes.

METHODS

A realist synthesis of peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted to identify the common contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes of QI curricula in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education in order to develop a programme theory to articulate what works, for whom, and in what contexts.

RESULTS

18854 records underwent title and abstract screening, full texts of 609 records were appraised for eligibility, data were extracted from 358 studies, and 218 studies were included in the development and refinement of the final programme theory. Contexts included curricular strategies, levels of training, clinical settings, and organisational culture. Mechanisms were identified within the overall QI curricula itself (eg, clear expectations and deliverables, and protected time), in the didactic components (ie, content delivery strategies), and within the experiential components (eg, topic selection strategies, working with others, and mentorship). Mechanisms were often associated with certain contexts to promote educational and clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This research describes the various pedagogical strategies for teaching QI to medical learners and highlights the contexts and mechanisms that could potentially account for differences in educational and clinical outcomes of QI curricula. Educators may benefit from considering these contexts and mechanisms in the design and implementation of QI curricula to optimise the outcomes of training in this competency area.

Focused Research Infrastructure for Postgraduate Pediatric Emergency Medicine Fellows Increases Dissemination of Scholarly Work

BACKGROUND

Many fellows in clinically driven subspecialties may have difficulty completing and publishing their scholarly projects due to lack of prior experience in research, selection of projects that are difficult to complete during fellowship, or mentorship challenges. This may be particularly true in pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) because research time may be longitudinally integrated with clinical rotations, rather than blocked as is common in other subspecialties. We describe the creation and outcomes of a structured program to increase academic productivity of PEM fellows.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of scholarly productivity (publications in peer-reviewed journals, presentation at national meetings) for PEM fellows over 17 years in one fellowship program, before and after the implementation of a structured program. We reviewed obstacles to publication for prior fellow projects when developing the curriculum. Our multifaceted program consisted of milestone development, four in-person committee meetings, and abstract and manuscript development workshops. We utilized existing faculty members, most of whom were junior faculty, as committee members. Our primary outcome was the percentage of fellows who were first authors for peer-reviewed publications for their fellowship projects. National conference presentations were the secondary outcome.

RESULTS

Data for 76 PEM fellows were eligible for analysis: 44 (58%) before and 32 after programmatic implementation. There was a statistically significant increase in the percentage of fellows who published their studies (32% vs. 63%; odds ratio [OR] = 3.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4 to 9.3) after programmatic implementation. There were no differences in conference presentations (45% vs. 63%; OR = 2.0, 95% CI = 0.8-5.1) after implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Utilizing a small group of existing, predominantly junior faculty members, we created a structured program that enhanced PEM fellows' scholarly productivity and increased publications. We believe that this model is sustainable for and generalizable to other PEM fellowship programs.

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

INTRODUCTION

Competency-based educational models recommend trainee exposure to research, but the best methods for Graduate Medical Education (GME) programs to accomplish this have not been clarified. The objective of this study was to quantify published interventions to generate resident research and compare effectiveness among those interventions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review of English-language articles of studies of GME programs was performed, describing resident research interventions and quantifying the number of publications as an outcome.

RESULTS

The search produced 13,688 potentially relevant articles, and included 47 articles in the final synthesis. Publication effectiveness was calculated as publications per year. The top ten programs for publication effectiveness were compared to others for interventions chosen. Interventions were characterized as research director, protected time, research requirement, research mentor, curricula, research assistant, biostatistician, information technology support, research fund, pay-for-performance plans, and celebration of accomplishments. Total number of different interventions was not significantly associated with primary outcome (r = 0.20, p = 0.18). When comparing the top ten programs to the others, appointment of a research director was statistically more prevalent in those programs (70% vs. 30%, p = 0.02), while presence of a defined curriculum was more common (90% vs. 57%, p = 0.052) but not statistically significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

Leadership interventions (directors, curricula) are associated with successful GME research efforts.

Authorship trends in the Journal of Orthopaedic Research: A bibliometric analysis

Publications are an important tool to measure one's success and achievement in academia. They can help propel a career forward and move one into a position of leadership. The overall purpose of this study was to investigate changes in bibliometric variables, authorship, and collaboration trends in the Journal of Orthopaedic Research (JOR®), since its inception in 1983. A bibliometric analysis was completed for all manuscripts meeting the inclusion criteria (638), which were published throughout the inaugural year plus one representative year of each decade. Several parameters were investigated including numbers of manuscripts, authors, collaborating institutions/countries, references, pages, and citations; region of origin and gender of authors over time and by region were main focuses. Significant increases over time were observed in all bibliometric variables analyzed except in the number of pages and citations. There was an approximate 27% point increase for both female first and corresponding authors from 1983 to 2015. While this is most likely due to the increase in the number of women that have entered the field over time, similar increases in the percentage of women holding positions on the JOR editorial board or in leadership positions within in the field may have also contributed to improvements in gender parity. Understanding changes in publishing characteristics over time, by region, and by gender are critical, especially with the rising demands of publishing in academia. JOR has seen increase in most variables analyzed, including improvements in authorship by women in the field of orthopaedic research. © 2018 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 36:3071-3080, 2018.

A Strategic Plan for Increasing Scholarly Activity Among Medical Students, Residents, and Faculty

BACKGROUND

Scholarly activity among students, residents, and faculty provides the foundation for medical education. However, a decline in the number of physician-scientists has been acknowledged during the past few decades. As a result, institutions have attempted to increase research activity among students and residents through a variety of means. This study describes a replicative model for medical institutions to increase their research enterprises among medical students, residents, and faculty.

METHODS

Des Moines University College of Podiatric Medicine and Surgery (DMU-CPMS) developed a Strategic Research Plan (SRP) to increase scholarly activity in the college. The SRP outlined an innovative model to increase research activity, including creating a Director of Research position, modifying the existing curriculum toward an evidence-based focus, increasing extracurricular research opportunities, and fostering collaborative research efforts among students, residents, and faculty.

RESULTS

After SRP implementation, an increase in scholarly activity was observed. In the 6 years before implementing the SRP, DMU-CPMS published 11 manuscripts. In the 6 years after initiating the SRP, manuscript publications increased to 50. During this same period, podium presentations at scientific meetings increased from 6 to 40, and students listed as lead author increased from 0 to 16.

CONCLUSIONS

The SRP provides a replicative model for medical institutions seeking to increase their research enterprises through collaboration among students, residents, and faculty. To our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate a research plan aimed at increasing scholarly activity among a comprehensive scope of individuals in medical education.

The Statewide Campus System Scholarly Activity Developmental Planning Framework for Community-Based GME Leaders

CONTEXT

During recent years, Graduate Medical Education (GME) leaders in the United States of America have witnessed many substantive changes, including movement to a single accreditation system under the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Both MD- and DO-trained residents and faculty must now meet an increasingly stringent set of accreditation standards outlined in Next Accreditation System standards. Specifically, updated scholarly activity standards emphasize a consistent volume and quantity of quality improvement/research projects and dissemination products. The GME literature to date has frequently provided general commentaries regarding individual project strategies or oriented to settings with greater project-related resources. There have also been few articles offering scholarly activity planning strategies for community-based GME officials striving to increase scholarly activity levels.

PROPOSED PLANNING FRAMEWORK

The authors propose a customizable assessment-planning framework, largely derived from their combined decades of consultation experiences with hundreds of community-based resident and faculty projects. The authors will first describe the primary elements of their proposed scholarly activity planning approach for GME leaders so often subject to worsening resource constraints. They will describe six ongoing developmental strategies with several exemplars described. Such a framework will likely require ongoing reassessments and modification.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors hope that this proposed planning framework will offer GME administrators, faculty and residents with a pragmatic set of strategies to develop scholarly activity projects and supports. Ideally, GME leaders can use this approach to inform their design of a sustainable system-customized infrastructure of scholarly activity supports.

Otolaryngology Residency Program Research Resources and Scholarly Productivity

Objective To delineate research resources available to otolaryngology residents and their impact on scholarly productivity. Study Design Survey of current otolaryngology program directors. Setting Otolaryngology residency programs. Subjects and Methods An anonymous web-based survey was sent to 98 allopathic otolaryngology training program directors. Fisher exact tests and nonparametric correlations were used to determine statistically significant differences among various strata of programs. Results Thirty-nine percent (n = 38) of queried programs responded. Fourteen (37%) programs had 11 to 15 full-time, academic faculty associated with the residency program. Twenty (53%) programs have a dedicated research coordinator. Basic science lab space and financial resources for statistical work were present at 22 programs (58%). Funding is uniformly provided for presentation of research at conferences; a minority of programs (13%) only funded podium presentations. Twenty-four (63%) have resident research requirements beyond the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) mandate of preparing a "manuscript suitable for publication" prior to graduation. Twenty-five (67%) programs have residents with 2 to 3 active research projects at any given time. None of the investigated resources were significantly associated with increased scholarly output. There was no uniformity to research curricula. Conclusions Otolaryngology residency programs value research, evidenced by financial support provided and requirements beyond the ACGME minimum. Additional resources were not statistically related to an increase in resident research productivity, although they may contribute positively to the overall research experience during training. Potential future areas to examine include research curricula best practices, how to develop meaningful mentorship and resource allocation that inspires continued research interest, and intellectual stimulation.

Research in Pediatric Residency: National Experience of Pediatric Chief Residents

OBJECTIVE

To determine factors associated with increased research productivity, satisfaction, and perceived barriers to research within residency from the experience of pediatric chief residents.

METHODS

An online cross-sectional survey was administered to academic year 2014-15 chief residents. Topics assessed included program demographic characteristics, career intentions, research productivity, satisfaction with research training and opportunities, and research barriers. Chi-square and Fisher exact tests were used for descriptive statistics. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to determine factors associated with productivity and research satisfaction.

RESULTS

The response rate was 63% (165 of 261). Half (82 of 165) were productive in research. Most were satisfied with their quality of research training (55%; 90 of 165) and research opportunities (69%; 114 of 165). Chiefs reporting interest in research were 5 times more likely to be productive than those who did not (odds ratio [OR] = 5.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3-11.8). Productive chiefs were more likely to report including research time in future careers (P = .003). Most (83%; 137 of 165) thought their programs were supportive of resident research, but lack of time was frequently cited as a major barrier. Those satisfied with research opportunities were less likely to find lack of training (OR = 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-0.7) or faculty mentorship (OR = 0.2; 95% CI, 0.0-0.9) as a major barrier.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric chief resident interest in research is strongly associated with research productivity during residency, and research productivity is strongly associated with career plans including research time. By cultivating research interest through faculty mentorship, research training, and dedicated time, pediatric residency programs might help foster early research success and, potentially lead to continued engagement with research in trainees' future careers.

Increasing Scholarly Activity Productivity During Residency: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Although resident participation in scholarly activity is mandated by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, programmatic factors associated with success are not defined. This systematic review's objective was to determine which interventions are effective in increasing resident scholarly activity productivity (RSAP), as measured by participation in scholarly activity, presentations, or publications.

METHOD

The PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and ERIC databases were searched through October 2013. English-language articles evaluating interventions to increase RSAP in U.S. or Canadian residency programs were included, without date limits. Two independent reviewers selected articles for inclusion and extracted data. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus.

RESULTS

Of the 6,248 records screened, 80 studies underwent data abstraction. Twenty-six described outcomes without a comparison group, leaving 54 studies representing 13 medical and surgical specialties. Interventions included required scholarly activity participation, protected research time, research curricula, research directors, dedicated research days, and research tracks. Focusing on the 35 studies reporting statistical analysis, RSAP was associated with all interventions. There were some differences in intervention effectiveness between medical and surgical specialties.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions, including protected time, research curricula, or specialized research tracks, generally result in increased participation in scholarly activity in residency programs, with mixed effects on resident presentations or publications. In many studies, interventions were bundled, suggesting that programs may need to provide increased structure and rigor through multiple pathways. The findings highlight the need for a clear definition of resident scholarly activity success aligned specifically to individual program and resident aims.

Scholarly development for primary care residents

BACKGROUND

Development, evaluation and dissemination of primary care innovations are essential for the future of health care; however, primary care physicians including family physician, lag behind hospital-based physicians in research productivity. Family medicine residencies struggle to implement scholarly skills training programmes for busy family physicians. The Primary Care Scholarly Development Program (PC-SDP) aimed to empower residents to incorporate innovation with scholarship into future practice, by facilitating successful resident scholarly projects and reducing perceived barriers.

METHODS

Educational intervention. The required PC-SDP was piloted through a family medicine residency programme in the USA. Key elements included: rigorous but achievable requirements; emphasis on Boyer's scholarship of application, teaching and discovery; resident engagement, through the support of their 'professional passions'; basic research training; multilevel mentoring; and modest curriculum time.

EVALUATION

A mixed-methods longitudinal evaluation included: (1) a qualitative study of intervention class; (2) assessing the scholarly output of the intervention class versus the comparison class; and (3) a follow-up survey of both groups after 3 or 4 years.

RESULTS

Data were analysed from all 25 residents in the classes of 2008 and 2009 (12 intervention; 13 comparison). Qualitative interviews of residents from the intervention group revealed that their initial feelings of trepidation about scholarly work gave way to feelings of accomplishment and confidence in their ability to integrate scholarship into busy careers. Residents in the intervention group had a greater volume of scholarly output at graduation, and follow-up surveys suggest that they value incorporating scholarship into their careers more so than physicians from the comparison group.

DISCUSSION

The PC-SDP seems to foster enthusiasm for scholarship by supporting residents' professional passions and facilitating successful projects. This may foster improved participation in scholarship in future clinical practice. Primary care physicians, including family physicians, lag behind hospital-based physicians in research productivity.

Effectiveness of iterative interventions to increase research productivity in one residency program

BACKGROUND

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires residency programs to expose residents to research opportunities.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of a series of iterative interventions to increase scholarly activity in one internal medicine residency.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of the effectiveness of a series of interventions to increase resident and faculty scholarly productivity over a 14-year period was performed using quality improvement methodology. Outcomes measured were accepted regional and national abstracts and PubMed indexed manuscripts of residents and faculty.

RESULTS

Initially, regional meeting abstracts increased and then were supplanted by national meeting abstracts. Sustained gains in manuscript productivity occurred in the eighth year of interventions, increasing from a baseline of 0.01 publications/FTE/year to 1.57 publications/FTE/year in the final year measured. Run chart analysis indicated special cause variation associated with the interventions performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Programs attempting to stimulate research production among faculty and residents can choose among many interventions cited in the literature. Since success of any group of interventions is likely additive and may take years to show benefit, measuring outcomes using quality improvement methodology may be an effective way to determine success.

Teaching Lifelong Research Skills in Residency: Implementation and Outcome of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Course

BACKGROUND

There is rising concern that fundamental scientific principles critical to lifelong learning and scientific literacy are not sufficiently addressed during residency.

OBJECTIVE

We describe the development, implementation, and evaluation of a systematic review and meta-analysis course designed to improve residents' research literacy.

INTERVENTION

We developed and implemented a novel, interactive, web-enhanced course for third-year psychiatry residents to provide the theoretical and methodological tools for conducting and reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The course is based on Bloom's learning model, and established criteria for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Eight sequential learning objectives were linked to 8 well-specified assignments, with the objectives designed to build on one another and lead to the creation of a scientific manuscript.

RESULTS

From 2010-2014, 54 third-year psychiatry residents (19 unique groups) successfully completed the course as part of a graduation requirement. The majority rated the course as being good or very good, and participants reported a statistically significant increase in their confidence to conduct systematic reviews (χ(2) = 23.3, P < .05) and meta-analyses (Fisher exact test, P < .05). Estimated total dedicated resident and faculty time over a period of 36 weeks was 36 to 72 hours and 60 hours, respectively. Residents' academic productivity included 11 conference presentations and 4 peer-reviewed published manuscripts, with 2 residents who were awarded honors for their projects.

CONCLUSIONS

A formal training course in systematic reviews and meta-analyses offers a valuable learning experience, which enhances residents' research skills and academic productivity in a feasible and sustainable approach.

Meeting Resident Scholarly Activity Requirements Through a Longitudinal Quality Improvement Curriculum

BACKGROUND

Quality improvement (QI) skills are learned during residency, yet there are few reports of the scholarly activity outcomes of a QI curriculum in a primary care program.

INTERVENTION

We examined whether scholarly activity can result from a longitudinal, experiential QI curriculum that involves residents, clinic staff, and faculty.

METHODS

The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Shadyside Family Medicine Residency implemented a required longitudinal outpatient practice improvement rotation (LOPIR) curriculum in 2005. The rotation format includes weekly multidisciplinary work group meetings alternating with resident presentations delivered to the entire program. Residents present the results of a literature review and provide 2 interim project updates to the residency. A completed individual project is required for residency graduation, with project results presented at Residency Research Day. Scholarly activity outcomes of the curriculum were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

As of 2014, 60 residents completed 3 years of the LOPIR curriculum. All residents satisfied the 2014 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) scholarly activity and QI requirements with a literature review presentation in postgraduate year 2, and the presentation of a completed QI project at Residency Research Day. Residents have delivered 83 local presentations, 13 state/regional presentations, and 2 national presentations. Residents received 7 awards for QI posters, as well as 3 grants totaling $21,639. The educational program required no additional curriculum time, few resources, and was acceptable to residents, faculty, and staff.

CONCLUSIONS

LOPIR is an effective way to meet and exceed the 2014 ACGME scholarly activity requirements for family medicine residents.

Osteopathic emergency medicine programs infrequently publish in high-impact emergency medicine journals

Introduction

Both the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) require core faculty to engage in scholarly work, including publication in peer-reviewed journals. With the ACGME/AOA merger, we sought to evaluate the frequency of publication in high-impact peer-reviewed EM journals from authors affiliated with osteopathic emergency medicine (EM) programs.

Methods

We performed a retrospective literature review using the Journal Citation Report database and identified the top five journals in the category of ‘Emergency Medicine’ by their 2011 Impact Factor. We examined all publications from each journal for 2011. For each article we recorded article type, authors’ names, position of authorship (first, senior or other), the author’s degree and affiliated institution. We present the data in raw numbers and percentages.

Results

The 2011 EM journals with the highest impact factor were the following: Annals of Emergency Medicine, Resuscitation, Journal of Trauma, Injury, and Academic Emergency Medicine. Of the 9,298 authors published in these journals in 2011; 1,309 (15%) claimed affiliation with U.S.-based EM programs, of which 16 (1%) listed their affiliations with eight different osteopathic EM programs. The 16 authors claimed affiliation with 8 of 46 osteopathic EM programs (17%), while 1,301 authors claimed affiliation with 104 of 148 (70%) U.S.-based allopathic programs.

Conclusion

Authors from osteopathic EM programs are under-represented in the top EM journals. With the pending ACGME/AOA merger, there is a significant opportunity for improvement in the rate of publication of osteopathic EM programs in top tier EM journals.

Designing and implementing INTREPID, an intensive program in translational research methodologies for new investigators

Senior housestaff and junior faculty are often expected to perform clinical research, yet may not always have the requisite knowledge and skills to do so successfully. Formal degree programs provide such knowledge, but require a significant commitment of time and money. Short-term training programs (days to weeks) provide alternative ways to accrue essential information and acquire fundamental methodological skills. Unfortunately, published information about short-term programs is sparse. To encourage discussion and exchange of ideas regarding such programs, we here share our experience developing and implementing INtensive Training in Research Statistics, Ethics, and Protocol Informatics and Design (INTREPID), a 24-day immersion training program in clinical research methodologies. Designing, planning, and offering INTREPID was feasible, and required significant faculty commitment, support personnel and infrastructure, as well as committed trainees.

Facilitation of resident scholarly activity: strategy and outcome analyses using historical resident cohorts and a rank-to-match population

BACKGROUND

Facilitation of residents' scholarly activities is indispensable to the future of medical specialties. Research education initiatives and their outcomes, however, have rarely been reported.

METHODS

Since academic year 2006, research education initiatives, including research lectures, research problem-based learning discussions, and an elective research rotation under a new research director's supervision, have been used. The effectiveness of the initiatives was evaluated by comparing the number of residents and faculty mentors involved in residents' research activity (Preinitiative [2003-2006] vs. Postinitiative [2007-2011]). The residents' current postgraduation practices were also compared. To minimize potential historical confounding factors, peer-reviewed publications based on work performed during residency, which were written by residents who graduated from the program in academic year 2009 to academic year 2011, were further compared with those of rank-to-match residents, who were on the residency ranking list during the same academic years, and could have been matched with the program of the authors had the residents ranked it high enough on their list.

RESULTS

The Postinitiative group showed greater resident research involvement compared with the Preinitiative group (89.2% [58 in 65 residents] vs. 64.8% [35 in 54]; P = 0.0013) and greater faculty involvement (23.9% [161 in 673 faculty per year] vs. 9.2% [55 in 595]; P < 0.0001). Choice of academic practice did not increase (50.8% [Post] vs. 40.7% [Pre]; P = 0.36). Graduated residents (n = 38) published more often than the rank-to-match residents (n = 220) (55.3% [21 residents] vs. 13.2% [29]; P < 0.0001, odds ratio 8.1 with 95% CI of 3.9 to 17.2).

CONCLUSION

Research education initiatives increased residents' research involvement.

A senior scholars forum can enhance the scholarship process

BACKGROUND

The purpose of our study was to evaluate the educational value of an annual Senior Scholars Forum (SSF) of graduating Emergency Medicine resident participants and attendees.

DESCRIPTION

This study was conducted at an urban academic medical center with a PGY1-4 year residency program. After completion of the 2nd annual SSF, a web-based survey instrument was sent to all resident and faculty attendees. The instrument was a 3-part tool adapted from previous studies on postgraduate scholarship. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

EVALUATION

Forty-two of the 44 (95%) attendees completed the survey, including 100% of the PGY4 resident presenters. Prior to the SSF, 52% of respondents did not have a full understanding of senior scholarly activities. After the SSF, 67% reported an improved understanding and 88% had a better understanding of the scope of potential scholarly projects. Sixty-four percent reported the SSF introduced them to departmental resources available for completion of their own scholarly projects, and 69% would have liked to have heard the lessons communicated earlier in residency. Most (79%) agreed the SSF demonstrated the value of communal scholarly activities. Most senior residents (67%) felt most of the department would not know about their scholarship if they had not participated in the SSF.

CONCLUSIONS

Our innovative SSF enhanced the scholarship process by allowing graduating senior residents an opportunity to share their scholarly productivity with a larger audience, provided attendees critical insights into the process of scholarship, and encouraged communal learning. Because the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and Residency Review Committee require all residents to participate in scholarly activity, other training programs may benefit from a similar educational experience.

A framework for improving resident research participation and scholarly output

OBJECTIVES

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires that "faculty should encourage and support residents in scholarly activities." There are no guidelines, however, to illustrate how this should be done, and only a small number of published reports offer examples of successful efforts to spur resident research. We sought to improve our residents' participation in scholarly activities.

DESIGN

We describe a multifaceted program to quickly build resident scholarship at an orthopaedic department.

SETTING

Large academic medical center in the Midwestern United States.

PARTICIPANTS

An experienced medical editor was recruited to assist faculty and mentor residents in coordinating research projects and to direct publishing activity. Additional publishing requirements were added to the resident curriculum beyond those already required by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Residents were required to select a faculty research mentor to guide all research projects toward a manuscript suitable for submission to a peer-reviewed journal. Activities were monitored by the editor and the resident coordinator.

RESULTS

Over 4 years, total department peer-reviewed publications increased from 33 to 163 annually. Despite a decrease in resident complement, the number of peer-reviewed publications with a resident author increased from 6 in 2009 to 53 in 2012.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of an experienced medical editor, changes in program requirements, and an increased commitment to promotion of resident research across the faculty led to a dramatic increase in resident publications. Our changes may be a model for other programs that have the financial resources and faculty commitment necessary to achieve a rapid turnaround.

Resident scholarship expectations and experiences: sources of uncertainty as barriers to success

BACKGROUND

Scholarly activity during residency is vital to resident learning and ultimately to patient care. Incorporating that activity into training is, however, a challenge for medical educators. Most research on medical student and resident attitudes toward scholarly activity to date has been quantitative and has focused on level of interest, desire to perform scholarship, and perceived importance of scholarship.

OBJECTIVE

We explored attitudes, expectations, and barriers regarding participation in scholarly activity among current residents and graduates of a single family medicine residency program.

METHODS

Using a phenomenologic approach, we systematically analyzed data from one-on-one, semistructured interviews with residents and graduates. Interviews included participant expectations and experiences with scholarly activity in residency.

RESULTS

The 20 participants (residents, 15 [75%]; residency graduates, 5 [25%]) identified uncertainty in their attitudes toward, and expectations regarding, participation in scholarly activity as an overarching theme, which may present a barrier to participation. Themes included uncertainty regarding their personal identity as a clinician, time to complete scholarly activity, how to establish a mentor-mentee relationship, the social norms of scholarship, what counted toward the scholarship requirements, the protocol for completing projects, and the clinical relevance of scholarship.

CONCLUSIONS

Uncertainty about scholarly activity expectations can add to learner anxiety and make performing scholarly activity during residency seem like an insurmountable task. Programs should consider implementing a variety of strategies to foster scholarly activity during residency, including clarifying and codifying expectations and facilitating mentoring relationships with faculty.