ArticleCureus2025
Impact of a Scholarly Concentrations Program on Residents' Scholarly Output and Professional Identity Formation.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
Background Scholarly activity during residency helps build residents' careers, establishes professional identity, supports the use of evidence-based medicine, and encourages the growth of future physician scientists. Furthermore, scholarship in residency is an important Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requirement. Nonetheless, barriers to scholarship, such as limited time and challenges in finding mentorship, persist. To overcome these barriers, we implemented and evaluated a pediatric residency Scholarly Concentrations (SC) program, focusing on professional identity formation (PIF) and scholarly output. The SC program, which began in 2012, provides a longitudinal curriculum and faculty mentorship and support for residents' scholarly projects. Residents choose among one of the following six areas of scholarly focus: basic science and translational research, clinical research, global health, community engagement and advocacy, quality and performance improvement, and medical education. Methodology In summer 2021, we emailed an anonymous electronic survey to all 175 pediatric resident alumni who completed the program and graduated between 2015 and 2020, asking questions related to key outcomes such as the impact of the SC program on professional identity and scholarly outputs during and since residency. Data were analyzed descriptively and with chi-squared tests. Results In total, 91 (52%) alumni completed the survey. Impact on PIF was high, with 69.2% (n = 63) reporting moderate/great impact on their careers, and 67.4% (n = 60) identifying research as important to their professional identity. Of respondents who were fellows or in university-based clinical practice at the time of the survey, 80.3% (n = 49) reported a moderate/great impact of the SC program on their career compared to 44.0% (n = 11) who were in non-university clinical settings (p = 0.03). Residency scholarship often translated to first-author articles, with 44.0% (n = 40) reported having first authorship on a manuscript related to their residency research. Post-residency, 76.9% (n = 70) of participants reported taking part in at least one type of research. Conclusions Our findings suggest that participation in the SC program was correlated with residents' robust scholarly outputs, professional identities, and careers.
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.