From the Medical Education Unit, School of Medicine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
From the Medical Education Unit, School of Medicine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
QJM. 2014 Sep;107(9):735-41. doi: 10.1093/qjmed/hcu064. Epub 2014 Mar 26.
Studies investigating variance between the academic performance of direct-entry (DEM) versus graduate-entry (GEM) medical students have yielded conflicting results, but their performance in undergraduate research-based assessments has not been compared to-date.
We aimed to compare the results of DEM and GEM students with respect to their senior research dissertation module.
This retrospective study examined the final year results between 2011-2012 in DEM, (n = 219) and GEM (n = 84) students. Between-group comparisons of dissertation module marks were conducted using independent t-tests. Correlations between marks in dissertation module and in other disciplines assessed during the final year were attained using Pearson's correlation. Multiple regression analysis was employed to adjust for potential confounding factors such as student age and gender.
No apparent difference was apparent between the DEM and GEM students with respect to results achieved across the clinical disciplines examined. However, GEM students performed significantly better than DEMs in their senior research dissertation assessment (Mean = 66.81% vs. 65.00%, fully adjusted p = 0.048). The variable which remained influential in regression analysis was nationality, where North American and Asian students were demonstrated to score lower than their Irish counterparts in the dissertation module (B coefficient = -1.90, SE = 0.94, P = 0.045 and B coefficient = -4.88, SE = 1.00, P < 0.001 respectively).
Performance in the research-based module was significantly better in GEM relative to their DEM colleagues. This finding may have implications for future recruitment into academic medicine, as aptitude and interest in research at undergraduate level has been shown to be associated with increased likelihood of an academic career in medicine.
直接入学（DEM）和研究生入学（GEM）医学生的学术表现差异的研究结果相互矛盾，但迄今为止，他们在本科研究型评估中的表现尚未进行比较。
我们旨在比较 DEM 和 GEM 学生在其高级研究论文模块方面的结果。
这项回顾性研究检查了 2011-2012 年 DEM（n=219）和 GEM（n=84）学生的最后一年成绩。使用独立 t 检验对论文模块分数进行组间比较。使用 Pearson 相关系数获得论文模块分数与最后一年评估的其他学科分数之间的相关性。采用多元回归分析来调整学生年龄和性别等潜在混杂因素的影响。
在检查的临床学科中，DEM 和 GEM 学生的成绩之间没有明显差异。然而，GEM 学生在高级研究论文评估中的表现明显优于 DEM 学生（平均值=66.81%对 65.00%，完全调整后 p=0.048）。在回归分析中仍然具有影响力的变量是国籍，北美人学生和亚洲学生在论文模块中的得分低于爱尔兰学生（B 系数=-1.90，SE=0.94，P=0.045 和 B 系数=-4.88，SE=1.00，P<0.001）。
GEM 在基于研究的模块中的表现明显优于他们的 DEM 同事。这一发现可能对未来的学术医学招聘产生影响，因为在本科阶段表现出对研究的能力和兴趣与在医学领域从事学术职业的可能性增加有关。
