Resident Scholarly Activity and Productivity Outcomes Before and After Implementing a Structured Research Program: A Before–After Study

IF 1.8 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Sydney Krispin, Eric Kontowicz, Brett Faine, Michael Takacs, Karisa K. Harland, J. Priyanka Vakkalanka, Kelli Wallace, Andrew Nugent, Nicholas M. Mohr
{"title":"Resident Scholarly Activity and Productivity Outcomes Before and After Implementing a Structured Research Program: A Before–After Study","authors":"Sydney Krispin,&nbsp;Eric Kontowicz,&nbsp;Brett Faine,&nbsp;Michael Takacs,&nbsp;Karisa K. Harland,&nbsp;J. Priyanka Vakkalanka,&nbsp;Kelli Wallace,&nbsp;Andrew Nugent,&nbsp;Nicholas M. Mohr","doi":"10.1002/aet2.70082","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>Emergency medicine (EM) residency programs require participation in scholarly activity. In 2017, we launched a formal Resident Research Program (RRP) for physician residents in our 3-year accredited residency program. We aimed to measure the association between the implementation of the RRP and resident scholarly productivity.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This analysis was a before-after study of residents in a Midwestern university-based EM residency program (7–10 per class) graduating between 2013 and 2023. The RRP was implemented in July 2017 and offered resources and requirements; our study compared outcomes before and after the launch of the program. We provided a dedicated training program study coordinator, 24-h in-house research assistants, faculty/research staff mentorship, and research funding. Residents were required to complete a hypothesis-driven research project and submit an abstract to a professional meeting or manuscript for publication. We tracked scholarly productivity per class, including publications, presentations, first-author manuscripts, and faculty publications with a resident. We measured the association between the RRP and scholarly productivity through univariate Poisson regression models to report the unadjusted rate ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Ninety residents were included (<i>n</i> = 43 after RRP launch). Annual mean resident scholarly productivity increased post-intervention for publications (10.4 vs. 6.2 publications per class, RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.09–2.59), presentations (7.4 vs. 3.7 abstracts per class, RR 2.01, 95% CI 1.19–3.42), and first-author publications (5.8 vs. 2.2 publications per class, RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.40–5.09). No significant change in faculty co-authors was observed (12.8 vs. 9.5, RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.95–1.92).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The implementation of a structured RRP was associated with increased resident scholarly productivity. The targeted research resources served as both a strategy to support resident research and enhance departmental academic engagement. Future research should examine the perceptions, quality, and impact of scholarly activity requirements on residents.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":37032,"journal":{"name":"AEM Education and Training","volume":"9 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/aet2.70082","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AEM Education and Training","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aet2.70082","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Emergency medicine (EM) residency programs require participation in scholarly activity. In 2017, we launched a formal Resident Research Program (RRP) for physician residents in our 3-year accredited residency program. We aimed to measure the association between the implementation of the RRP and resident scholarly productivity.

Methods

This analysis was a before-after study of residents in a Midwestern university-based EM residency program (7–10 per class) graduating between 2013 and 2023. The RRP was implemented in July 2017 and offered resources and requirements; our study compared outcomes before and after the launch of the program. We provided a dedicated training program study coordinator, 24-h in-house research assistants, faculty/research staff mentorship, and research funding. Residents were required to complete a hypothesis-driven research project and submit an abstract to a professional meeting or manuscript for publication. We tracked scholarly productivity per class, including publications, presentations, first-author manuscripts, and faculty publications with a resident. We measured the association between the RRP and scholarly productivity through univariate Poisson regression models to report the unadjusted rate ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

Results

Ninety residents were included (n = 43 after RRP launch). Annual mean resident scholarly productivity increased post-intervention for publications (10.4 vs. 6.2 publications per class, RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.09–2.59), presentations (7.4 vs. 3.7 abstracts per class, RR 2.01, 95% CI 1.19–3.42), and first-author publications (5.8 vs. 2.2 publications per class, RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.40–5.09). No significant change in faculty co-authors was observed (12.8 vs. 9.5, RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.95–1.92).

Conclusions

The implementation of a structured RRP was associated with increased resident scholarly productivity. The targeted research resources served as both a strategy to support resident research and enhance departmental academic engagement. Future research should examine the perceptions, quality, and impact of scholarly activity requirements on residents.

Abstract Image

实施结构化研究计划前后的居民学术活动和生产力结果:前后研究
目的急诊医学(EM)住院医师项目需要参与学术活动。2017年,我们为住院医师推出了正式的住院医师研究计划(RRP),该计划为期3年。我们的目的是衡量RRP的实施与居民学术生产力之间的关系。方法对2013年至2023年毕业的中西部大学EM住院医师项目(每班7-10人)的住院医师进行了前后研究。RRP于2017年7月实施,并提供了资源和要求;我们的研究比较了项目启动前后的结果。我们提供了专门的培训项目研究协调员,24小时内部研究助理,教师/研究人员指导和研究资金。居民被要求完成一个假设驱动的研究项目,并向专业会议提交摘要或手稿发表。我们跟踪每堂课的学术生产力,包括出版物、演讲、第一作者手稿和一位住院医师的教员出版物。我们通过单变量泊松回归模型测量RRP与学术生产力之间的关联,以95%置信区间(95% CI)报告未调整率比(RR)。结果RRP启动后共纳入90名居民(n = 43)。干预后,发表文章(每类10.4篇对6.2篇,RR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.09-2.59)、报告(每类7.4篇对3.7篇摘要,RR = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.19-3.42)和第一作者发表文章(每类5.8篇对2.2篇,RR = 2.66, 95% CI = 1.40-5.09)的年平均学术生产力均有所提高。教职工共同作者未见显著变化(12.8 vs. 9.5, RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.95-1.92)。结论:结构化RRP的实施与住院医师学术生产力的提高有关。有针对性的研究资源既是支持居民研究的战略,也是加强部门学术参与的战略。未来的研究应该考察居民对学术活动要求的看法、质量和影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
AEM Education and Training
AEM Education and Training Nursing-Emergency Nursing
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
22.20%
发文量
89
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信