Feldman Nicola, Swartz Talia H, Karani Reena, Rojas Mary
Department of Medical Education, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 1255, New York, NY 10029 USA.
Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY USA.
Med Sci Educ. 2024 Feb 23;34(2):421-428. doi: 10.1007/s40670-024-02001-3. eCollection 2024 Apr.
As research becomes an increasingly important component of medical education, there is greater emphasis on incorporating programmatic enhancements to the research experience. This study builds a logic model to summarize research program inputs, outputs, and outcomes from research-oriented medical schools across the country, providing a framework that institutions can use to design and improve their medical student research training programs.
Between November 2021 and February 2022, we administered a survey assessing institutional characteristics, research offerings, curriculum, funding, and student scholarly products to the medical schools ranked 1-50 in research in 2021 by US News and World Report. Results were compiled in the form of a logic model.
Thirty-seven institutions (72.5%) responded. Common program inputs included personnel such as at least one funded program director (97.3%), while funding for medical student research activities was highly variable (8-72%). There was much less funding for faculty research mentors (2.7%), advisors (18.9%), and teaching faculty (29.7%). Common outputs included a medical student research office or program (97.3%), formal research curricula (83.8%), and services and programs such as research day (91.9%). The most common outcomes tracked were publications (48.6%), presentations/posters (43.2%), student participation (29.7%), and completion of a research requirement (29.7%).
Common themes in medical student research training programs may be conceptualized with a logic model that schools can use to develop, evaluate, and iteratively improve their programs. Institutions should consider their desired program outcomes prior to designing inputs (e.g., funding, personnel) and outputs (e.g., curriculum, training).
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-024-02001-3.
随着研究在医学教育中变得越来越重要，人们越来越强调对研究体验进行系统性的改进。本研究构建了一个逻辑模型，以总结全国研究型医学院校的研究项目投入、产出和成果，提供一个机构可以用来设计和改进其医学生研究培训项目的框架。
在2021年11月至2022年2月期间，我们对《美国新闻与世界报道》2021年研究排名前50的医学院校进行了一项调查，评估机构特征、研究课程、课程设置、资金和学生学术成果。结果以逻辑模型的形式汇总。
37所机构（72.5%）做出了回应。常见的项目投入包括人员，如至少一名获得资助的项目主任（97.3%），而医学生研究活动的资金差异很大（8%-72%）。用于教师研究导师（2.7%）、顾问（18.9%）和教学教师（29.7%）的资金要少得多。常见的产出包括医学生研究办公室或项目（97.3%）、正式的研究课程（83.8%）以及研究日等服务和项目（91.9%）。追踪的最常见成果是出版物（48.6%）、报告/海报展示（43.2%）、学生参与（29.7%）和完成研究要求（29.7%）。
医学生研究培训项目的共同主题可以用一个逻辑模型来概念化，学校可以用它来开发、评估和迭代改进他们的项目。机构在设计投入（如资金、人员）和产出（如课程、培训）之前，应考虑其期望的项目成果。
在线版本包含可在10.1007/s40670-024-02001-3获取的补充材料。
