Online promotion of resident research and research training among postgraduate year one ( PGY1 ) pharmacy residency programs

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olivia Benyamin ◽  
Sydney Lambert ◽  
Kristi Mascarenas ◽  
Kellie J. Goodlet
Keyword(s):  
Research Training ◽  
Residency Programs ◽  
Resident Research

Development of a Pharmacy Residency Research Certificate Program

2019 ◽  
pp. 001857871986765
Author(s):  
Erin R. Weeda ◽  
Kyle A. Weant
Keyword(s):  
Research Methods ◽  
Research Design ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Teaching Skills ◽  
Certificate Program ◽  
Resident Research ◽  
Certificate Programs ◽  
The Impact

Background: Similar to teaching certificate programs, which have been incorporated in many pharmacy residencies to improve teaching skills, resident research certificate programs could provide residents with more exposure to biostatistics and research design. However, few research certificate programs have been described. Objective: To assess the impact of a research certificate program on residents’ attitude toward, confidence in, and knowledge of research. Methods: A resident research certificate program was created for the 2018-2019 residency class at our institution, which included 33 pharmacy residents (15 postgraduate year-1 [PGY1] and 18 PGY2 residents). The program consisted of 7 sessions aimed at providing residents with research training. To earn a certificate, participants were required to attend 6 or more sessions and achieve a score greater than or equal to 70% on a postassessment. An optional questionnaire assessing attitude, confidence, and knowledge was also administered at baseline and following the certificate program. Results: Of the 33 residents participating in the research certificate program, 21 (9 PGY1 and 12 PGY2) residents completed both the baseline and follow-up questionnaire and were included in the analysis. All items assessing attitude and 3 of 6 items assessing confidence improved significantly following the certificate program when compared to baseline ( P < .05 for all). Median knowledge scores were no different on the baseline versus follow-up questionnaire ( P = .54). Conclusions: After completing a research certificate program, resident knowledge scores did not differ from baseline, but attitudes toward research and confidence appeared to improve. Research certificate programs could be an avenue for providing pharmacy residents with increased exposure to and comfort with biostatistics and research design.

scholarly journals Scholarly Success Among Internal Medicine Residents in Canada

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Katarzyna Jerzak MD ◽  
Donald M. Arnold MD MSc ◽  
Shariq Haider MD
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Postgraduate Medical Education ◽  
Medical Writing ◽  
Scientific Meeting ◽  
Resident Research ◽  
Internal Medicine Residents ◽  
Research Curriculum ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Abstract Presentation

Scholar activity is an integral component of postgraduate medical education in Canada. We describe the opportunities in research training among Canadian internal medicine (IM) programs, including program requirements and supportive infrastructure, as well as barriers and enablers of research success. Methods: An email survey was sent to all program directors (PDs) (n = 14) and core IM residents (n = 1119) from English-speaking IM Residency Training Programs in Canada to describe research support and productivity. We evaluated factors associated with achieving an abstract presentation at a scientific meeting or publication of a manuscript in a peer-reviewed journal. Results: A total of 10 of 14 PDs (71%) and 308 of 1119 residents (28%) responded to the survey. Of 10 evaluable programs, 6 had a formal research curriculum and 8 had a mechanism of pairing residents with research mentors. A total of 236 (76%) residents completed a research project during core IM training; of those, 171 (55%) published (n = 84) or presented (n = 150) their research. A mechanism for linking residents with suitable research mentors, instruction on medical writing, and instruction on data analysis were associated with residents' achieving publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Conclusion: Requirements for resident research are variable across Canadian IM programs. Instruction on medical writing and statistics, as well as a mechanism to pair residents with suitable research mentors, contribute to resident research success.

Resident research training conducted in a community hospital general surgery residency program

2003 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 304-309 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard M Lampman ◽  
Seth W Wolk ◽  
Jennifer Fowler ◽  
Robert Cleary ◽  
Richard A Pomerantz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Surgery ◽  
Residency Program ◽  
Community Hospital ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Resident Research ◽  
General Surgery Residency ◽  
Surgery Residency Program ◽  
Hospital General

Otolaryngology Residency Program Research Resources and Scholarly Productivity

2017 ◽  
Vol 156 (6) ◽  
pp. 1119-1123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer A. Villwock ◽  
Chelsea S. Hamill ◽  
Brian D. Nicholas ◽  
Jesse T. Ryan
Keyword(s):  
Residency Program ◽  
Program Directors ◽  
Full Time ◽  
Intellectual Stimulation ◽  
Research Experience ◽  
Scholarly Productivity ◽  
Residency Programs ◽  
Resident Research ◽  
Scholarly Output ◽  
Research Resources

Objective To delineate research resources available to otolaryngology residents and their impact on scholarly productivity. Study Design Survey of current otolaryngology program directors. Setting Otolaryngology residency programs. Subjects and Methods An anonymous web-based survey was sent to 98 allopathic otolaryngology training program directors. Fisher exact tests and nonparametric correlations were used to determine statistically significant differences among various strata of programs. Results Thirty-nine percent (n = 38) of queried programs responded. Fourteen (37%) programs had 11 to 15 full-time, academic faculty associated with the residency program. Twenty (53%) programs have a dedicated research coordinator. Basic science lab space and financial resources for statistical work were present at 22 programs (58%). Funding is uniformly provided for presentation of research at conferences; a minority of programs (13%) only funded podium presentations. Twenty-four (63%) have resident research requirements beyond the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) mandate of preparing a “manuscript suitable for publication” prior to graduation. Twenty-five (67%) programs have residents with 2 to 3 active research projects at any given time. None of the investigated resources were significantly associated with increased scholarly output. There was no uniformity to research curricula. Conclusions Otolaryngology residency programs value research, evidenced by financial support provided and requirements beyond the ACGME minimum. Additional resources were not statistically related to an increase in resident research productivity, although they may contribute positively to the overall research experience during training. Potential future areas to examine include research curricula best practices, how to develop meaningful mentorship and resource allocation that inspires continued research interest, and intellectual stimulation.

scholarly journals Dermatology residency research policies and support: A national USA survey

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-13
Author(s):  
Pratibha Anand ◽  
Hania Flaten ◽  
Cory Dunnick ◽  
Robert Dellavalle
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Revision Process ◽  
Mentorship Program ◽  
Residency Programs ◽  
Resident Research ◽  
Conducting Research ◽  
Physician Scientists

Background: Dermatology residency programs are considerably varied in regard to their resident research requirements and resources. The authors examined the availability of 12 key resident research-related criteria in 30 ACGME dermatology residency programs in the United States. Objective: To assess the degree to which dermatology residency programs require and support their new physician graduates in scholarly research. Methods: This cross-sectional study employed a 12-item survey administered online that was informed and created by literature search, expert feedback, and a thorough review and revision process. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the differences in programs’ policies and structure around resident research. Results: Thirty out of 114 PDs (26%) responded to the survey. We found that while most programs had publication and QI project requirements for residents, the majority did not have required research rotations, research electives, or a formal mentorship program. Thus, in spite of a growing need for new physician–scientists coupled with the various benefits associated with conducting research during residency training, considerable hurdles dissuade new physician graduates from pursuing careers in clinical research. Conclusions: Our survey findings supply timely, objective data on dermatology resident research requirements across the country. Medical schools, residency programs, and the ACGME/ AMA may all find our results valuable in further enhancing, evolving, and systematizing dermatology residency policies and provisions.

scholarly journals Re-thinking clinical research training in residency

2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e58-e61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer O'Brien ◽  
Marcel D'Eon
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Research ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Successful Development ◽  
Resident Research ◽  
The Public ◽  
Local Setting ◽  
Medical Educators ◽  
Central Purpose

Background: There are good reasons to train clinician researchers, including a lack of translational and patient centered research, a decline in physicians choosing academic careers, the need for physicians who are able to critically appraise research, and accreditation requirements. However, why are we insisting that residents engage in original clinical research?Discussion: This paper is structured around three questions: 1) Is mandating original research the answer? 2) What ought to be the central purpose of research training? And 3) What are the alternatives to original clinical research?  The successful development of clinician-scientists involves many more factors than resident research training. While invoking social accountability and public welfare, we argue for considering the opportunity cost of resident research training. We question the focus on original resident research and challenge medical educators to encourage research training aimed steadfastly at public good in the local setting. Finally, we offer preliminary suggestions for how to move forward.Conclusions: We conclude that medical educators should critically re-think our programs to develop resident researchers. If it is worthwhile to require original research projects during residency, then we must consider the priorities of local settings to best serve the public interest.

scholarly journals The Neurosurgeon-Scientists National Institutes of Health Funding Trends

Neurosurgery ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Karim ReFaey ◽  
Shashwat Tripathi ◽  
William D Freeman ◽  
Hugo Guerrero-Cazares ◽  
James Meschia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Funding ◽  
Regression Models ◽  
Research Training ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Formal Training ◽  
Residency Programs ◽  
Health Funding ◽  
Nih Funding ◽  
Physician Scientists ◽  
Over Time

Abstract INTRODUCTION Formal training for physician-scientists is needed more than ever in the field of neurosurgery for the good of the patients and the field. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding is considered as the most prestigious yet competitive research funding to obtain. This study was performed to determine whether a correlation exists between bibliometrics and NIH funding data among academic neurosurgeons and compare the trends in neurosurgery NIH funding to practicing neurosurgeons and non-neurosurgeons between 1993 to 2017. METHODS Grants to neurosurgery were extracted from the NIH Reporter. Neurosurgery data from 1993 to 2017 were collected; the following parameters were obtained: primary investigators (PIs), grant type, and total funding. Regression models compared NIH funding over time. RESULTS After adjusting for inflation (base year 1993), while funding to both practicing neurosurgeons (P < .00001, R2 = 0.70) and non-neurosurgeons (P < .00001, R2 = 0.61) has been increasing, the percentage of neurosurgery NIH funding going to neurosurgeons (P < .1, R2 = 0.12) is steadily decreasing. Additionally, a total of 542 men were awarded NIH neurosurgery grants compared to 174 women (P < .000001), and the men had a significantly higher average funding per scientist (P < .01). Of the grants awarded to neurosurgery, 30% (213/716) of the awardees were neurosurgeons, and 29% (424/1464) of the awarded grants went to neurosurgeons. There was a rise in active R01 grants 56.4% (207/367) among total active awarded neurosurgery grants, in comparison to the historically awarded R01 rate of 38.2%. CONCLUSION The low percentage of new neurosurgeons awarded NIH grants coupled with the lack of formalized training in residency has the potential to worsen the future pipeline for neurosurgeon-scientists. Future residency programs need to incorporate formalized research training and incentives into training despite escalating economic pressures on departments to see more and more patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document