ArticleMedical science educator2025
A Qualitative Analysis of Letters to Successors to Evaluate Medical Students' Experience of a Mandatory Research Project.
Article in Medical science educator, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Research capability is a key graduate outcome in medical education, yet student experiences of mandatory research components remain underexplored. This study investigated medical students' experiences of a compulsory research project within an Australian medical degree program, identifying enablers, barriers, and perceived outcomes. Methods: A mixed-methods study was conducted using survey data from two student cohorts (2022 and 2023) following the completion of a 14-week research block. Quantitative data described participant characteristics, project types, and grades. Qualitative data, drawn from reflective "letters to successors", were thematically analysed using iterative coding and external validation. Results: A total of 410 responses were analysed (74% response rate). Five core themes were identified: collaborative learning and support, skills and knowledge development, positive and negative project outcomes, autonomy, and professional skill development. Positive experiences were linked to project alignment with student interests and accessible supervision. Barriers included limited supervisor availability, social isolation, and time constraints. Many students valued the opportunity to develop research and transferable skills, with some reporting intentions to publish their work. Discussion: Student satisfaction was influenced by interest, support, and project relevance. Autonomy and skill development emerged as key enablers, while isolation and supervisor inaccessibility were common barriers. These findings highlight the importance of structured support, protected time, and student-centred project selection in enhancing engagement and ensuring high-quality, equitable research education in medical programmes.
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.