The impact of The Royal College of Surgeons of England research fellowship scheme

Abstract

Introduction The research fellowship scheme for surgeons in training run by The Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCS) had its 20th anniversary in 2013. A survey was undertaken to assess outcomes of the scheme during those 20 years. Methods Fellowship recipients were invited to complete an online 20-item questionnaire about their fellowship research and research activities since its completion. The questionnaire covered type of research undertaken, higher research degree enrolment, publications resulting from the fellowship research and subsequent research career. Results Of the 502 RCS fellowship recipients, 361 responded (72%). Their research covered a broad array of topics, Almost two-thirds (62%) undertook laboratory-based research and most of the remainder conducted patient-based clinical research. The vast majority (96%) of respondents had enrolled for a higher degree, with a high completion rate: 91% of fellowship recipients in the first 15 years of the scheme obtained their degree. Of the fellowships from the first 15 years of the scheme, between a fifth and a third of recipients subsequently held an academic position. The median number of peer reviewed articles and presentations per recipient was 3 and 6 respectively. Almost two-thirds (60%) of respondents had obtained funding for further research, with over half of these receiving grants from national research funding bodies. Conclusions The RCS research fellowship scheme has helped trainee surgeons to undertake research towards the start of their career. Most trainees used RCS fellowships as part of their funding towards a higher degree and this was regularly achieved, along with a number of peer reviewed publications. A significant proportion of fellowship recipients progressed into academic positions in surgery.

Career Trajectory of Physicians Following a Fellowship Program: A Descriptive Study

“…The impact of a research fellowship on subsequent publications has been shown previously by The Royal College of Surgeons of England and others. 5,6 On the other hand, in the study of Agarwal et al, the h-index did not differ between fellowship-and non-fellowship-trained practitioners. 7 Obviously, it was no coincidence to find both of these findings in our study population, since academic status significantly contributes to the advancement of a physician in our institute.…”

Comparative bibliometric analysis of publications by past Royal Australasian College of Surgeons research scholarship recipients

“…Due to the methodology used and information gathered in the present study, it is difficult to compare with other key studies exploring benefits and outcomes from scholarships. However, one clear common outcome is that receiving a scholarship or grant increases publication rates and future funding opportunities for recipients, 4,5,9,10 with many progressing in academic profile 10 …”

“…4,7 Due to the methodology used and information gathered in the present study, it is difficult to compare with other key studies exploring benefits and outcomes from scholarships. However, one clear common outcome is that receiving a scholarship or grant increases publication rates and future funding opportunities for recipients, 4,5,9,10 with many progressing in academic profile. 10 Discrepancies in search results from Scopus, Google Scholar, PubMed and ResearchGate have previously been reported, [11][12][13] consistent with discrepancies between different databases presented here.…”

“…Different surgical colleges/societies and funding groups have employed a diverse range of techniques in attempting to document the effectiveness of scholarships and fellowships on the recipients' academic output. Some studies used online searching to gauge academic productivity, 1,2 others surveyed recipients directly for the perceived impact of a scholarship or grant on academic productivity or career progression 3–7 …”

“…Some studies used online searching to gauge academic productivity, 1,2 others surveyed recipients directly for the perceived impact of a scholarship or grant on academic productivity or career progression. [3][4][5][6][7] Studies attempting to determine research performance or impact after a scholarship have used multiple performance indicators. A systematic review found a variety of indicators that researchers focused on when determining performance, including number of publications, number of citations, impact factor, research funding, degree of co-authorship and h-index scores.…”