Bhatti Faheem, Mowforth Oliver, Butler Max, Bhatti Zainab, Rafati Fard Amir, Kuhn Isla, Davies Benjamin M
School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
JMIR Med Educ. 2023 Mar 15;9:e39210. doi: 10.2196/39210.
Research methodology is insufficiently featured in undergraduate medical curricula. Student-selected components are designed to offer some research opportunities but frequently fail to meet student or supervisor expectations, such as completion or publication. We hypothesized that a collaborative, educational approach to a systematic review (SR), whereby medical students worked together, may improve student experience and increase success.
This study aimed to establish whether offering a small team of students the opportunity to take part in the screening phase of SRs led by an experienced postgraduate team could enhance the learning experience of students, overcome the barriers to successful research engagement, and deliver published output.
Postgraduate researchers from the University of Cambridge led a team of 14 medical students to work on 2 neurosurgical SRs. One student was appointed as the lead for each SR. All students were provided with training on SR methodology and participated in title and abstract screening using Rayyan software. Students completed prepilot, midscreening, and postscreening questionnaires on their research background, perceptions, knowledge, confidence, and experience. Questions were scored on a Likert scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree).
Of the 14 students involved, 29% (n=4) reported that they had received sufficient training in research methodology at medical school. Positive trends in student knowledge, confidence, and experience of SR methodology were noted across the 3 questionnaire time points. Mean responses to "I am satisfied with the level of guidance I am receiving," "I am enjoying being involved in the SR process," and "I could not gain this understanding of research from passive learning e.g., textbook or lecture" were greater than 8.0 at all time points. Students reported "being involved in this research has made me more likely to do research in the future" (mean 8.57, SD 1.50) and that "this collaborative SR improved my research experience" (mean 8.50, SD 1.56).
This collaborative approach appears to be a potentially useful method of providing students with research experience; however, it requires further evaluation.
本科医学课程中对研究方法的介绍不足。学生自主选择的部分旨在提供一些研究机会,但往往无法满足学生或导师的期望,比如研究的完成或发表。我们推测,一种协作式的、针对系统评价(SR)的教育方法,即医学生共同开展研究,可能会改善学生体验并提高成功率。
本研究旨在确定让一小队学生有机会参与由经验丰富的研究生团队主导的系统评价筛选阶段,是否能提升学生的学习体验,克服成功参与研究的障碍,并产出发表成果。
剑桥大学的研究生研究人员带领一组14名医学生参与两项神经外科系统评价。每项系统评价指定一名学生作为负责人。所有学生都接受了系统评价方法的培训,并使用Rayyan软件参与标题和摘要筛选。学生们在预试点、筛选中期和筛选后期完成了关于他们的研究背景、认知、知识、信心和经验的问卷。问题采用1(强烈不同意)至10(强烈同意)的李克特量表评分。
在参与的14名学生中,29%(n = 4)报告称他们在医学院接受了足够的研究方法培训。在三个问卷时间点上,学生在系统评价方法的知识、信心和经验方面均呈现积极趋势。在所有时间点上,对“我对所接受的指导水平感到满意”“我享受参与系统评价过程”以及“我无法通过被动学习(如教科书或讲座)获得对研究的这种理解”的平均回答均大于8.0。学生报告称“参与这项研究使我未来更有可能开展研究”(平均8.57,标准差1.50),并且“这种协作式系统评价改善了我的研究体验”(平均8.50,标准差1.56)。
这种协作方法似乎是为学生提供研究经验的一种潜在有用方法;然而,它需要进一步评估。