ArticleBMC medical education2019
Would you do it again? A qualitative study of student and supervisor perceptions of an intercalated MBChB/PhD programme.
Article in BMC medical education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Motivating Medical Innovators: A Qualitative COM-B Analysis of Physician-Scientists Engagement in Biomedical Advancement in Chinese Academic Medical Centers.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- Understanding medical students' intercalation decisions to preserve the clinical academic pipeline: a mixed-method survey.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Association of completing an intercalated year-long research degree with post-graduation academic success.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Potentialities and challenges of stricto sensu graduate studies in health: A qualitative meta-synthesis.Investigacion y educacion en enfermeria · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral studies have warned about the diminishing physician-scientist breed. Limited studies, however, have attempted to assess what factors (if any) enhanced or hindered the experience of trainee physician-scientists and their supervisors. Using Vroom's expectancy theory as a conceptual framework, we explored the highlights, motivations and barriers of an intercalated MBChB/PhD programme as experienced by students of the programme and their supervisors.
methodsPrevious and current students of the MBChB/PhD programme at the University of Otago, and their supervisors, were invited to provide comments on the programme. Data were analysed using a general inductive approach which involved coding responses, and grouping codes into common themes via an iterative process. A deductive approach was used to interpret the themes and relate them to Vroom's expectancy theory.
resultsA total of 22 students (88% response rate) and 36 supervisors (58.3% response rate) responded to our survey. Three themes were identified through the analysis of the students' responses. These were: motives for undertaking the intercalated degree, effect on career development, and perceived barriers. Supervisors' survey yielded two themes: characteristics of successful students, and optimising the intercalated programme.
conclusionsThe current study sheds light on the successes and challenges of an intercalated MBChB/PhD programme by considering the views of those most involved. Whereas the combined programme has its advantages for student research and career development, extending the research-time may be worthwhile. Further studies involving a larger cohort of intercalating students and their supervisors may allow for extrapolation of data to address these concerns.
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.