ArticleCBE life sciences education2018
Supporting the Writing Productivity of Biomedical Graduate Students: An Integrated, Structured Writing Intervention.
Article in CBE life sciences education, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pedagogic Strategies and Contents in Medical Writing/Publishing Education: A Comprehensive Systematic Survey.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2024Review
- Assessment of confidence in medical writing: Development and validation of the first trustworthy measurement tool.PloS one · 2024Article
- Article
- Shut Up & Write!® builds writing self-efficacy and self-regulation in early-career researchers.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2023Article
- Scientific Writing Workshop Improves Confidence in Critical Writing Skills among Trainees in the Biomedical Sciences.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2020Article
- Article
- Impact of Performing Medical Writing/Publishing Workshops: A Systematic Survey and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Writing is a critical skill for graduate students, but few studies in the literature describe how it is supported in the training of biomedical graduate students. The Initiative for Maximizing Student Development program at Loma Linda University aims to develop this important skill in its students through an integrated, structured writing intervention. Specifically, the program hired a writing specialist who taught writing seminars, facilitated writing and publishing workshops, and mentored students in one-on-one writing conferences. Doctoral students in the program, primarily underrepresented minority students with some not having English as a first language, all exhibited writing apprehension and blocking behaviors. The percentage of students graduating, publishing, and entering science careers, all of which require writing, is high. To yield insight into how this intervention worked, we conducted in-depth interviews of six of the earliest graduates, derived themes, analyzed data from pre- and post-assessments, and described their publication records. Participating students increased their writing confidence, adopted productive writing strategies, decreased writing anxiety and blocking behaviors, and published successfully.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.