ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2020
Residents Take the Lead: A Modern Collaborative Approach to Research During Residency.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundParticipation in scholarship is a requirement for Internal Medicine (IM) residencies, but programs struggle to successfully integrate research into busy clinical schedules. In 2013, the IM residency at Brigham and Women's Hospital implemented the Housestaff Research Project (HRP)- a novel residency-wide research initiative designed to facilitate participation in scholarship. The HRP had two components-a formal research curriculum and an infrastructure that provided funding and mentorship for resident-led, housestaff wide projects.
methodsThis is a mixed-methods study of 190 IM residents and two HRP-supported research projects. Seventy-seven residents responded to an electronic survey about their interests in research exposure in residency. Fifty-six residents responded to an electronic survey about their participation in the HRP. The success of HRP-supported projects was evaluated through resident comments, interviews with three residents leading the first two HRPs and a description of the success of the projects based on resident involvement and dissemination of the results.
resultsEighty-seven percent (n= 67/77) of residents were interested in additional research exposure during residency. Ninety-five percent (n = 53/56) of residents had heard of the HRP, and 77% had participate in at least one aspect of it. Approximately 20 residents were directly involved in the two resident-led projects. HRP-supported projects resulted in presentations at three local and three national conferences, one manuscript in press, and one manuscript in preparation. The resident project leaders felt that a strength and unique aspect of the HRP was the collaboration with co-residents.
conclusionThe HRP successfully created a culture of research and scholarship within the residency. The HRP leaders and residents that participated in HRP-supported projects expressed the most direct benefits from the program. All residents were exposed to research concepts and methods. Future directions for the HRP include selecting projects that maximize the number of resident participants and integrating a more robust research curriculum.
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.