Trial reportBMJ open2021
First steps in the physician-scientist pipeline: a longitudinal study to examine the effects of an undergraduate extracurricular research programme.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impacts of a University Research Assistant Program: The First Decade.Medical science educator · 2023Article
- Extracurricular activities in medical education: an integrative literature review.BMC medical education · 2023Review
- Impact of supervisors' research style on young biomedical scientists' capacity development as measured by REDi, a novel index of crossdisciplinarity.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2022Article
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
objectivesMedicine is facing a physician-scientist shortage. By offering extracurricular research programmes (ERPs), the physician-scientist training pipeline could already start in undergraduate phases of medical training. However, previous studies into the effects of ERPs are mainly retrospective and lack baseline measurements and control groups. Therefore, the current study mimics a randomised controlled trial to examine the effects of an ERP.
designProspective cohort study with baseline measurement and comparable control group.
settingOne cohort of 315 medical undergraduates in one Dutch University Medical Center are surveyed yearly. To examine the effects of the ERP on academic achievement and motivational factors, regression analyses were used to compare ERP students to students showing ERP-interest only, adjusted for relevant baseline scores.
participantsOut of the 315 students of the whole cohort, 56 participated within the ERP and are thus included. These ERP students are compared with 38 students showing ERP-interest only (ie, control group). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Academic achievement after 2 years (ie, in-time bachelor completion, bachelor grade point average (GPA)) and motivational factors after 18 months (ie, intrinsic motivation for research, research self-efficacy, perceptions of research, curiosity).
resultsERP participation is related to a higher odds of obtaining a bachelor degree in the appointed amount of time (adjusted OR=2.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 10.52). Furthermore, starting the ERP resulted in higher levels of intrinsic motivation for research, also after adjusting for gender, age, first-year GPA and motivational baseline scores (β=0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.63). No effect was found on research self-efficacy beliefs, perceptions of research and curiosity.
conclusionsPrevious research suggested that intrinsic motivation is related to short-term and long-term research engagement. As our findings indicate that starting the ERP is related to increased levels of intrinsic motivation for research, ERPs for undergraduates could be seen as an important first step in the physician-scientist pipeline.
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.