Scholarly concentration programs and medical student research productivity: a systematic review

Elwood et al. 1986 [26]

Nottingham Medical School; Honours Year Program in Community Health

UK

Survey (n = 98; 80% response rate)

7.8

– The proportion of publications and presentations resulting from a required research program increased from 13% to 53% from the first through fifth and tenth through thirteenth graduating classes following program implementation.

Gonzales et al. 1998 [20]

University of Colorado; Family Medicine Scholars Program

US

Retrospective^a (n = 161)

9.3

– The number of student presentations resulting from a family medicine research program increased from zero to seven between one and seven years following program implementation.

– The number of papers accepted for publication increased from zero to two over the same time period.

Smith et al. 2001 [27]

University of Calgary Faculty of Medicine; Research Project Program

Canada

Survey (n = 63; 91% response rate); compared to survey data collected 10 years earlier

9.7

– The proportion of students who had submitted or were planning to submit their research for publication increased from 11% to 59% between the first and tenth graduating classes, respectively, following implementation of a mandatory scholarly concentration program.

Solomon et al. 2003 [8]

University of Tennessee College of Medicine; Medical Student Research Fellowship

US

Survey (n = 114; response rate not specified)

11.2

– The number of abstracts and presentations resulting from a medical student research fellowship increased from 7 to 60, and 6 to 52, respectively, from the 17^th to 21^st years following program implementation.

– The number of manuscripts decreased from 14 to 13 over the same time period.

Ogunyemi et al. 2005 [22]

Drew University of Medicine; Mandatory Medical Thesis

US

Retrospective^a (n = 168)

9.0

– The number of presentations resulting from a mandatory primary care research thesis increased from five to ten between seven and eight years following program implementation.

Zier et al. 2006 [13]

Mount Sinai School of Medicine; Medical Student Research Program

US

Retrospective (‘n’ not provided)

10.5

– The percentage of graduating students publishing peer-reviewed manuscripts increased from 11 to 25% between two and eight years following implementation of structured research programs.

– The percentage of students as first authors increased from 5 to 13% within the same period.

Dyrbye et al. 2008 [23]

Mayo Medical School; Required Third-Year Medical School Research Experience

US

Retrospective cohort (n = 981)

12.9

– Graduates who published a research report related to their required scholarly concentration – relative to their peers who did not – published more research reports unrelated to their required research within three years of graduation.

– Graduates who presented their scholarly concentration research or published an abstract related to their scholarly concentration published more total and unrelated research reports within three years of graduation.

– More students in a required 21-week research experience were first authors than those in a 17/18-week experience.

Langhammer et al. 2009 [29]

Robert Wood Johnson Medical School; Distinction in Research Program

US

Retrospective^a (n = 28)

14.3

– The proportion of students who submitted a published manuscript to fulfil an elective research program final product requirement was 1/1 (100%), 1/6 (17%), 1/9 (11%), 2/4 (50%), and 0/8 (0%) for academic years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, respectively.

Akman et al. 2010 [21]

Marmara University School of Medicine

Turkey

Retrospective (n = 289)

12.5

– The number of poster presentations by first year medical students in a mandatory group research program was 11, 17, 23, 38, 22, and 32 for years 2002 through 2007, respectively.

– The number of oral presentations by second and third year participants in the same program was 18, 25, 31, 26, 36, and 38 for years 2002 through 2007, respectively; the number of poster presentations by second and third year participants was 19, 19, 37, 31, 19, and 25 over the same time period.

Areephanthu et al. 2015 [24]

Professional Mentored Student Research Fellowship; University of Kentucky College of Medicine

US

Retrospective (119 research program participants versus 898 non-participants)

13.8

– Students enrolled in an elective research program authored 0.8 ± 0.3 papers, versus their classmates who were not enrolled (0.3 ± 0.06, p < 0.0001).

– Research program participants were more than twice as likely than their classmates to author or co-author a PubMed-indexed paper (36.7% vs. 17.9%, p < 0.0001).

– Of students that published PubMed-indexed papers, research program participants published 2.1 ± 0.51 publications compared to 1.4 ± 0.15 for non-participants (p < 0.001).

George et al. 2015 [25]

Scholarly Concentration Program; The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University

US

Retrospective (n = 460)

14.1

– Participants in an elective research program published an average of 1.29 papers per student, compared to 0.83 papers published per non-participant.

– Program participants had a higher frequency of publications than non-participants; the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.013).

Overall scores

Domain-specific scores^a

First author (year)

Average adjusted total ^b

Study design

Sampling

Data type

A

B

C

Mean

A

B

C

Mean

A

B

C

Mean

Elwood (1986) [26]

7.8

2

1

1

1.3

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

Gonzales (1998) [20]

9.3

1

1

1

1

0.5

0.5

1

0.7

3

3

3

3

Smith (2001) [27]

9.7

2

1

1

1.3

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

Solomon (2003) [8]

11.2

2

1.5

2

1.8

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

3

3

3

3

Ogunyemi (2005) [22]

9.0

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1.7

3

3

3

3

Zier (2006) [13]

10.5

1

1

1

1

2

1

1.5

1.5

3

3

3

3

Dyrbye (2008) [23]

12.9

1

2

2

1.7

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

Langhammer (2009) [29]

14.3

2

2

2

2

2

0.5

0.5

1

3

3

3

3

Akman (2010) [21]

12.5

1

1.5

1.5

1.3

1.5

2

2

1.8

3

3

3

3

Areephanthu (2015) [24]

13.8

2

2

2

2

2

0.5

0.5

1

3

3

3

3

George (2015) [25]

14.1

2

2

2

2

2

0.5

0.5

1

3

3

3

3

Total/Average

11.4

–

–

–

1.5

–

–

–

1.6

–

–

–

2.8

First author (year)

Validity

Analysis

Outcome

A

B

C

Mean

A

B

C

Mean

A

B

C

Mean

Elwood (1986) [26]

–

0

N/A

0

0

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

Gonzales (1998) [20]

–

N/A

0

N/A

0

1

2

2

1.7

2

1

1

1.3

Smith (2001) ([27])

–

0

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1.3

Solomon (2003) [8]

–

2

0

0

0.7

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1.3

Ogunyemi (2005) [22]

–

0

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1.3

Zier (2006) [13]

–

3

0

0

1

2

3

3

2.7

2

1

1

1.3

Dyrbye (2008) [23]

–

2

2

1

1.7

3

3

3

3

2

1

1

1.3

Langhammer (2009) [29]

–

3

N/A

N/A

3

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

Akman (2010) [21]

–

1

2

1

1.3

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

Areephanthu (2015) [24]

–

2

N/A

N/A

2

3

3

3

3

2

2

1.5

1.8

George (2015) [25]

–

3

N/A

N/A

3

3

3

3

3

2

1.5

2

1.8

Total/Average

–

–

–

–

1.2

–

–

–

2.5

–

–

–

1.5

Study design

0.79 (0.41, 0.94)

6/11

Sampling

Number of institutions

1.00 (1.00, 1.00)

11/11

Response rate

0.16 (−3.09, 0.85)

4/7

Type of data

1.00 (1.00, 1.00)

11/11

Validity of evaluation instrument

Internal structure

–^b

3/5

Content

0.83 (0.37, 0.97)

4/6

Relationships to other variables

–^b

3/6

Data analysis

Appropriateness of analysis

–^b

10/11

Complexity of analysis

0.96 (0.89, 0.99)

10/11

Outcomes

0.56 (−0.01, 0.86)

3/11

Adjusted total^c

0.92 (0.74, 0.98)

–