Outcomes of a Multi-faceted Educational Intervention to Increase Student Scholarship

Abstract

Objective. To increase the percentage of state, national, or international student presentations and publications. Design. A multi-faceted intervention to increase student scholarly output was developed that included: (1) a 120-minute lecture on publication of quality improvement or independent study research findings; (2) abstract workshops; (3) poster workshops; and (4) a reminder at an advanced pharmacy practice experience (APPE) meeting encouraging students to publish or present posters. The intervention effect was measured as the percent of students who presented at meetings and the number of student projects published. Assessment. A significant increase occurred in the percent of students who presented posters or published manuscripts after the intervention (64% vs 81%). Total student productivity increased from 84 to 147 posters, publications, and presentations. The number of projects presented or published increased from 50 to 77 in one year. Conclusion. This high-impact, low-cost intervention increased scholarly output and may help students stand out in a competitive job market.

Fostering PharmD Skills Related to Research and Quality Improvement Through Mentored Projects

“…1 However, the few studies evaluating required PharmD research training that include quantitative outcomes, such as publications, presentations, or measurable change in knowledge, confidence, and interest regarding research, often note that more scholarship is needed in these areas so that colleges of pharmacy can know how many of these benefits are achievable. 4,[7][8][9] To realize these potential benefits, the University of Utah College of Pharmacy implemented required mentored student research or quality improvement projects as part of a broader curriculum revision starting with the Class of 2019. This article describes the structure of the program and evaluates the impact on and feasibility for the first graduating students to complete the program.…”

A Systematic Review of Extramural Presentations and Publications from Pharmacy Student Research Programs

“…7 Cooley et al found that the presentation/publication rate for students, including quality assurance and research projects, increased from 64% to 81% of students following an intervention. 12 Riveros et al noted that about half of studies registered in ClinicalTrials.gov were not published, 39 and Weber et al found that 55% of papers presented at a medical conference were not published five years later. 40 However, an appropriate presentation and publication rate has not been established, and, indeed, there is not agreement that extramural presentations and publications are appropriate outcomes to consider for student research.…”

“…Cooley et al demonstrated that a student survey identified only 64% of the publications and presentations that were identified using multiple other methods (eg, review of student CVs, review of posters presented at conferences). 12 The third area with risk for bias was reporting. To calculate publication and presentation rates, an accurate denominator is required that clearly denotes the number of projects that serve as the basis for calculation.…”

“…Cooley at al found that a 3-part intervention, including a workshop on writing abstracts and making posters, increased the total proportion of students presenting or publishing from 64% to 81%. 12 However, there was no indication in the reviewed literature what level of support is needed for students conducting research and preparing extramural presentations or writing manuscripts for publication.…”

“…Methods bias was defined as bias resulting from the procedures used to collect data on publications and presentations as an earlier study indicated that data on student presentations and publications were difficult to collect. 12 Reporting bias was defined as the bias resulting from reporting per student rates vs per project rates. Follow-up bias was defined as the bias resulting from a short data collection period given the length of time required for publication.…”