Assessing publication rates from medical students' mandatory research projects in the Netherlands: a follow-up study of 10 cohorts of medical students.

OBJECTIVES: The medical field is facing a clinician-scientist shortage. Medical schools could foster the clinician-scientist workforce by offering students research opportunities. Most medical schools offer elective research programmes. Subsequently, a subset of doctors graduates without any research experience. Mandatory research projects may be more sufficient to develop clinician-scientist, but take more supervision and curricular time. There is limited insight in the scientific outcomes of mandatory research experiences. This study aims to examine publication rates of a mandatory research experience, identify factors associated with publication, and includes postgraduate research engagement. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective follow-up study involving 10 cohorts of medical students' mandatory research projects from Leiden University Medical Center. PARTICIPANTS: All medical students who conducted their research project between 2008 and 2018 (n=2329) were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Publication rates were defined as peer-reviewed scientific publications, including research papers, reviews, and published meeting abstracts. Postgraduate research engagement was defined as research participation and dissemination of research at scientific conferences or in journals. RESULTS: In total, 644 (27.7%) of all mandatory research experiences resulted in publication, with students mainly as first (n=984, 42.5%) or second author (n=587, 25.3%) and above world average citation impact (mean normalised journal score 1.29, mean normalised citation score 1.23). Students who conducted their research in an academic centre (adjusted OR 2.82; 95% CI 2.10 to 3.77), extended their research (adjusted OR 1.73; 95% CI 1.35 to 2.20), were involved in an excellency track (adjusted OR 2.08; 95% CI 1.44 to 3.01), or conducted clinical (adjusted OR 2.08; 95% CI 1.15 to 3.74) or laboratory (adjusted OR 2.16; 95% CI 1.16 to 4.01) research published their research more often. Later as junior doctors, this group significantly more often disseminate their research results at scientific conferences (adjusted OR 1.89; 95% CI 1.11 to 3.23) or in journals (adjusted OR 1.98; 95% CI 1.14 to 3.43). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that a significant subset of hands-on mandatory research projects with flexible learning pathways result in tangible research output with proper impact and that such successful experiences can be considered as diving board towards a research-oriented career.

Fostering the physician-scientist workforce: a prospective cohort study to investigate the effect of undergraduate medical students' motivation for research on actual research involvement.

OBJECTIVES: The medical field is facing a physician-scientist shortage. Medical schools could contribute to developing physician-scientists by stimulating student involvement in research. Studies have examined motivation for research as a key parameter of success. However, previous studies did not investigate if students act on their self-reported motivation. The aim of this study is to examine if motivation for research of medical students is related to actual research involvement. Furthermore, this study distinguishes intrinsic (IM) and extrinsic motivation (EM) for research and aims to investigate if a type of motivation matters in the relation between research motivation and involvement. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective cohort study in which students were surveyed at the start of medical school and reported IM and EM for research, self-efficacy, perceptions of research and curiosity on a 7-point Likert scale. One year later, students involved in research were identified. Logistic regression was used to examine influences of IM and EM on research involvement. PARTICIPANTS: All undergraduate medical students starting at one medical school in the Netherlands in 2016. In total, 315 out of 316 students participated (99.7%), of whom 55 became involved in research (17.5%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Research involvement, which was operationalised as the enrolment of students in the research-based honours programme or the involvement of students in voluntary research activities outside of the regular curriculum. RESULTS: Students with higher levels of IM were more often involved in research (OR 3.4; 95% CI 2.08 to 5.61), also after adjusting for gender, age, extracurricular high school activities, self-efficacy, perceptions and curiosity (OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.35 to 4.78). Higher levels of EM increased the odds of research involvement (OR 1.4; 95% CI 0.96 to 2.11). However, the effect of EM disappeared after adjusting for the above-mentioned factors (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.67 to 1.63). Furthermore, the effect of IM remained after adjusting for EM, whereas the effect of EM disappeared after adjusting for IM. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the type of motivation matters and IM influences research involvement. Therefore, IM could be targeted to stimulate research involvement and could be seen as the first step towards success in fostering the physician-scientist workforce.