ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2026
Fostering Research Engagement and Ideation: Insights from Medical Students in Thailand.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Fostering Research Engagement and Ideation: Insights from Medical Students in Thailand.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
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 plays a vital role in fostering critical thinking among medical students, while also strengthening related skills such as writing, communication, collaboration, and project management. Beyond skill development, research experiences can serve as valuable credentials and inspire future career paths. Despite these benefits, students often face challenges in identifying thought-provoking topics and securing suitable mentors. This study explores how medical students generate research ideas and establish connections with advisors, with the goal of identifying actionable institutional strategies to enhance research engagement. Methods: Quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews were conducted sequentially, focusing on the 2023 cohort of third-year medical students who were required to complete a research proposal as part of their graduation requirements. Quantitative data were summarized as counts, percentages, means, and standard deviations. To complement these findings, qualitative interview data were analyzed independently by two investigators using reflexive thematic analysis to contextualize and extend the quantitative findings. Results: Quantitative data from 139 students revealed that the most important factors for generating research ideas were discussions with professors, literature reviews, and attendance at research seminars. Advisors for first research projects were usually class professors, while advisors for subsequent projects were obtained through recommendations. Qualitative interviews with 19 students reflected the survey results while also uncovering additional factors not captured in the survey options, such as assisted advisor matching systems or invitations from previous advisors to collaborate on new projects. The interviews also revealed students' perspectives on how effectively the curriculum facilitated professor matching and their personal experiences with research advisors. Additionally, while many participants expressed a personal interest in research, the majority opposed making research a mandatory requirement in medical school. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that strengthening faculty-student interactions, maintaining accessible platforms, and optimizing research seminars can enhance student satisfaction and the overall quality of undergraduate research.
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.