ArticleCureus2024
Understanding the Barriers and Benefits to Scholarly Writing Among Internal Medicine Residents: A Pilot Study of an Innovative Education Method.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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.
- Competing institutional logics in surgical training: a qualitative study of coping strategies in China's dual-track system.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Perceptions of Japanese Medical Trainees and Physicians About Writing Case Reports: A Questionnaire-Based Survey.Cureus · 2025Article
- The value of publishing case reports for the professional development of Chinese residents: a qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- The write of passage: Overcoming barriers to academic writing during emergency medicine fellowship training.AEM education and training · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background This study addresses the participation gap in scholarly activities among internal medicine residents. While the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education emphasizes the importance of these activities, the variability in their definition and support across residency programs presents a challenge. This study investigates these discrepancies and aims to identify the specific barriers and benefits residents perceive in scholarly writing, especially in case report writing, and to propose effective educational interventions. Methodology A voluntary online survey, pre- and post-educational intervention, was conducted among residents at Sparrow Hospital, Michigan State University. The intervention comprised a two-hour session focusing on case report writing, presentation skills, scientific literature searches, and research project engagement. Responses were obtained on a five-point Likert scale, and the data were analyzed as respective frequencies and percentages. Results Of 45 residents, 23 completed the pre-survey. With a response rate of 51% from the internal medicine residents, the post-intervention data revealed considerable improvement in the residents' understanding and appreciation of scholarly activities. There was a marked enhancement in their skills related to scientific literature search and in recognizing the benefits of scholarly engagement. Additionally, the intervention successfully increased their confidence in presenting scholarly work, networking, and identifying relevant venues for their research. Conclusions The study highlights the challenges residents face in scholarly activities, such as lack of training and mentorship. It suggests that focused workshops and mentorship can significantly enhance residents' research skills and confidence.
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.