Evaluating a Resident Research Program: The Experience and the Output

Natalwalla, Shane; Mathur, Siddhi; Farrugia, Michele; Yudin, Mark H.

doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2019.02.215

Cited by 1 publication

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Statistics were scored as the weakest field. Residents reported a lack of statistical knowledge as a principal barrier for research 4,19 and providing the availability of a biostatistician has helped residents increase publication levels. 14,23 While examining the third level, behavior change, evaluators concluded that several barriers prevented clinical residents from engaging in scholarly activities, which mainly included mentorship, funding, constrained time, and attitude towards publications.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…10,20,24,25 Prior studies have reported a lack of proper mentoring as a significant barrier for research. 4,8 Residents of TUOMS were less motivated to do research due to 1) mandatory research topics and 2) advisors/ mentors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Time for research is crucial in clinical residency. 4,8,10,25,26 In the TUOMS research program, a protected one month period during the first year of residency was allocated to proposal writing, but program directors did not consider a similar protected time for research execution. Although one month of protected time helped residents complete proposals, it caused understaffed wards, scheduling difficulties, and residents missing some clinical experience.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 "Citations per faculty" is one of the criteria accepted by most worldwide organizations to rank universities, persuading university program directors to include scholarly activities in all educational programs to increase publication rates among medical students and residents. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Evidence shows various barriers toward residents' research; however, there are reports of successful results, and often benefits are more than merely an increase in publications. Residents with research training are more satisfied with their careers and deliver better patient care.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of a research methods course for clinical residents

Shishavan

Alizadeh

2019

Res Dev Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Residency programs generally carry out various educational interventions to improve residents’ publication records. Since an intervention may not produce the same effect in different locations, evaluating the effectiveness of individual interventions is essential for examining progress in this field of study. Authorities at the Tabriz University of Medical Science (TUOMS) proposed a research training program targeting a rise in residents’ scholarly activity and publications; this study aimed to evaluate the program and share the findings and experiences. Methods: Questionnaires were sent to 182 residents and the heads of all clinical departments. Evaluators used Kirkpatrick’s four-level model and Stufflebeam’s Context, Input, Process and Product model for data gathering and analyzing. Focus group discussions (FGDs) and in-depth semi-structured interviews were done with faculty members, executive staff, and residents to complement the survey results. Data were summarized and categorized using quantitative and qualitative analysis. Results: The participation rate for residents and heads of departments were 76 (41.7%) and 14(70%), respectively. At the end of the course, residents assessed their knowledge and research skills as weak or medium in most of the subjects. A total of 182 (100 %) residents prepared thesis proposals. Only 82 (49.1%) residents completed their thesis, and 19 (11.3%) published papers.Generally, participants were not satisfied with the course. Barriers noted were: mandatory topics for theses, an intensive course with a one-month duration, a lack of consideration of practical subjects, high cost of the course, and failure to achieve an increase in publications. Conclusion: The Self-assessment results of increased knowledge and research skills did not indicate improvement. Mandatory participation in the course did not result in the expected publication increase.

show abstract