Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36562030›Full record

ArticleAEM education and training2022

"Not just a checkbox": A qualitative study of the resident scholarly experience.

Jaime Jordan, Max Berger, Mark Curato, Jonathan S Ilgen, Laura R Hopson, Samuel O Clarke, Anne K Chipman, Adam Janicki, Michael Gottlieb

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AEM education and training, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors.

Jaime JordanDepartment of Emergency Medicine David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA Los Angeles California USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6573-7041
Max BergerDepartment of Emergency Medicine David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA Los Angeles California USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2828-9243
Mark CuratoDepartment of Emergency Medicine New York New York USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5463-6387
Jonathan S IlgenDepartment of Emergency Medicine University of Washington School of Medicine Seattle Washington USA.
Laura R HopsonDepartment of Emergency Medicine University of Michigan Medical School Ann Arbor Michigan USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1183-4751
Samuel O ClarkeDepartment of Emergency Medicine UC Davis Health Sacramento California USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3762-1727
Anne K ChipmanDepartment of Emergency Medicine University of Washington School of Medicine Seattle Washington USA.
Adam JanickiDepartment of Emergency Medicine University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Pennsylvania USA.
Michael GottliebDepartment of Emergency Medicine Rush University Medical Center Chicago Illinois USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3276-8375

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Scholarship is a requirement of residency training; however, the scholarly productivity of trainees is highly variable. The purpose of this study was to explore the perspectives of residents who have been highly productive in scholarship. Methods: We performed a qualitative study using a constructivist-interpretivist paradigm and conducted semistructured interviews at seven Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited emergency medicine residency programs in the United States. We included sites of diverse locations and training formats (PGY-1 to -4 vs. PGY-1 to -3). Program leadership identified residents with high levels of scholarly productivity at their institutions. We used purposive sampling to seek out residents with diversity in gender and PGY level. Two researchers independently performed a thematic analysis of interview transcripts. Discrepancies were resolved through in-depth discussion and negotiated consensus. Results: We invited 14 residents and all consented to be interviewed. Residents felt scholarship enhanced their knowledge and skills, grew collaborative networks, and provided personal fulfillment and external rewards. Scholarship positively impacted their careers by focusing their professional interests and informing career decisions. Participants identified individual and institutional facilitators of success including personal prior knowledge and skills, project management skills, mindset, protected time, mentorship, and leadership support. Challenges to conducting scholarship included lack of time, expertise, and resources. Participants acknowledged that participating in scholarly activities was hard work and recommended that residents seek out quality mentorship, work on projects that they are passionate, start early, and be persistent in their efforts. Participants' advice to faculty supporting resident scholarship included recommendations to allow resident autonomy of projects, provide scholarly opportunities, and be responsive to trainee needs. Conclusions: Participants in this study highlighted benefits of participating in scholarly activity as well as challenges and strategies for success. These results can inform residencies seeking to enhance the scholarly experience of trainees.

Identifiers

PMID36562030
PMCPMC9763974

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.