ArticleJournal of STEM outreach2026
MYHealth Impact Projects: A Mixed Methods Evaluation of an Online Research Training Program for Adolescents.
Article in Journal of STEM outreach, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Biomedical research is essential to healthcare and medicine. However, challenges in training and decreasing persistence among trainees have contributed to the U.S. ongoing healthcare crisis. MYHealth Impact Projects is a 9-month online research training program for adolescents where twenty-two participants used a nationwide text message poll to complete a team-based adolescent health research project. We conducted a mixed methods evaluation to assess engagement and changes in participants' researcher identity and self-efficacy, science motivation, and science literacy, including: 1) pre-, mid- and post-surveys, 2) program participation, and 3) semi-structured interviews. We used Kruskal-Wallis rank tests to compare changes over time. We conducted inductive thematic analysis on qualitative data and integrated final themes with the quantitative results for mixed methods inferences. Participants completed an average of 17.8 hours in bi-weekly sessions (28.75 hours max). There were statistically significant increases in researcher identity and science literacy. Salient themes included: 1) dispelling preconceived notions of being a researcher, 2) building research literacy through hands-on experience, 3) developing self-efficacy through an environment that supports autonomy, and 4) emerging interest in research careers through near-future goals. These findings emphasize the importance of hands-on and authentic learning in research training.
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.