Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32179561›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

How do trainee doctors learn about research? Content analysis of Australian specialist colleges' intended research curricula.

Paulina Stehlik, Christy Noble, Caitlin Brandenburg, Peter Fawzy, Isaac Narouz, David Henry, Paul Glasziou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Recommendations for the College of Intensive Care Medicine (CICM) trainee research project: A modified Delphi study.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Paulina StehlikInstitute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia pstehlik@bond.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-5397-228X
Christy NobleAllied Health, Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service, Southport, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8763-234X
Caitlin BrandenburgOffice for Research Governance and Development, Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service, Southport, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6992-7790
Peter FawzyFaculty of Health Science and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Isaac NarouzFaculty of Health Science and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
David HenryInstitute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2934-2242
Paul GlasziouInstitute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7564-073X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPatients do better in research-intense environments. The importance of research is reflected in the accreditation requirements of Australian clinical specialist colleges. The nature of college-mandated research training has not been systematically explored. We examined the intended research curricula of Australian trainee doctors described by specialist colleges, their constructive alignment and the nature of scholarly project requirements.

designWe undertook content analysis of publicly available documents to characterise college research training curricula.

settingWe reviewed all publicly accessible information from the websites of Australian specialist colleges and their subspecialty divisions. We retrieved curricula, handbooks and assessment-related documents.

participantsFifty-eight Australian specialist colleges and their subspecialty divisions. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Two reviewers extracted and coded research-related activities as learning outcomes, activities or assessments, by research stage (using, participating in or leading research) and competency based on Bloom's taxonomy (remembering, understanding, applying, analysing, evaluating, creating). We coded learning and assessment activities by type (eg, formal research training, publication) and whether it was linked to a scholarly project. Requirements related to project supervisors' research experience were noted.

resultsFifty-five of 58 Australian college subspecialty divisions had a scholarly project requirement. Only 11 required formal research training; two required an experienced research supervisor. Colleges emphasised a role for trainees in leading research in their learning outcomes and assessments, but not learning activities. Less emphasis was placed on using research, and almost no emphasis on participation. Most learning activities and assessments mapped to the 'creating' domain of Bloom's taxonomy, whereas most learning outcomes mapped to the 'evaluating' domain. Overall, most research learning and assessment activities were related to leading a scholarly project.

conclusionsAustralian specialist college research curricula appear to emphasise a role for trainees in leading research and producing research deliverables, but do not mandate formal research training and supervision by experienced researchers.

Indexed as

PhysiciansAccreditationAustraliaBiomedical ResearchClinical CompetenceCurriculumEducation, Medical, GraduateHumansMedicineeducation & training (see medical education & training)medical education & trainingstatistics & research methods

Identifiers

PMID32179561
PMCPMC7073806

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.