对澳大利亚和新西兰专科受训人员研究经历和成果的横向调查。

Paulina Stehlik, Caitlyn Withers, Rachel Bourke, Adrian Barnett, Caitlin Brandenburg, Christy Noble, Alexandra Bannach-Brown, Gerben Keijzers, Ian A Scott, Paul Glasziou, Emma Veysey, Sharon Mickan, Mark Morgan, Hitesh Joshi, Kirsty Forrest, Thomas Campbell, David Henry
{"title":"对澳大利亚和新西兰专科受训人员研究经历和成果的横向调查。","authors":"Paulina Stehlik, Caitlyn Withers, Rachel Bourke, Adrian Barnett, Caitlin Brandenburg, Christy Noble, Alexandra Bannach-Brown, Gerben Keijzers, Ian A Scott, Paul Glasziou, Emma Veysey, Sharon Mickan, Mark Morgan, Hitesh Joshi, Kirsty Forrest, Thomas Campbell, David Henry","doi":"10.1101/2024.03.11.24303739","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To explore medical trainees experiences and views concerning college-mandated research projects. Setting: Online survey (Apr-Dec 2021) of current and recent past trainees of Australian and New Zealand colleges recruited through 11 principal colleges and snowballing.\nParticipants: Current trainee or completed training in the past 5 years. Main outcome measures: We asked participants: whether they were required to conduct research as part of their college training, how they conducted their research, and their research activity after training. Respondents were invited to submit project reports for reporting and methodological quality evaluation. Data were analysed descriptively. Results: Of the 372 respondents, 313 (86%) were required to complete one or more projects. Of the 177 who had completed their project (representing 267 projects), 76 provided information on 92 studies, with 34 reports submitted for evaluation. Most respondents developed their own research questions, study design and protocol, and conducted research in their own time, with 56% (38/68) stating they had the skills to complete their project. Most project teams consisted of their own medical specialty followed by statisticians, but seldom others. 44% (30/68) were satisfied with their research experience, and 53% (36/67) supported mandatory projects. Half (87/174) felt research was important for career development, 72% (44/61) considered initiating research post-training, and 54% (33/61) participated in it. Commonly expressed themes were time-burden of conducting projects, production of research waste, and the importance of research for skills development. Of the 34 submitted reports, 75% were published and 82% had a clear research question. Only three had a low risk of bias. Conclusion: Majority of respondents conducted projects, but few shared details or reports. Despite valuing their research experiences and seeing clinical relevance, time conflicts and research waste were common concerns. Colleges should focus on enhanced research methods training and creating trainee research collaboratives. Protocol registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/BNGZK","PeriodicalId":501387,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Medical Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A cross sectional survey of Australian and New Zealand specialist trainees research experiences and outputs.\",\"authors\":\"Paulina Stehlik, Caitlyn Withers, Rachel Bourke, Adrian Barnett, Caitlin Brandenburg, Christy Noble, Alexandra Bannach-Brown, Gerben Keijzers, Ian A Scott, Paul Glasziou, Emma Veysey, Sharon Mickan, Mark Morgan, Hitesh Joshi, Kirsty Forrest, Thomas Campbell, David Henry\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2024.03.11.24303739\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: To explore medical trainees experiences and views concerning college-mandated research projects. Setting: Online survey (Apr-Dec 2021) of current and recent past trainees of Australian and New Zealand colleges recruited through 11 principal colleges and snowballing.\\nParticipants: Current trainee or completed training in the past 5 years. Main outcome measures: We asked participants: whether they were required to conduct research as part of their college training, how they conducted their research, and their research activity after training. Respondents were invited to submit project reports for reporting and methodological quality evaluation. Data were analysed descriptively. Results: Of the 372 respondents, 313 (86%) were required to complete one or more projects. Of the 177 who had completed their project (representing 267 projects), 76 provided information on 92 studies, with 34 reports submitted for evaluation. Most respondents developed their own research questions, study design and protocol, and conducted research in their own time, with 56% (38/68) stating they had the skills to complete their project. Most project teams consisted of their own medical specialty followed by statisticians, but seldom others. 44% (30/68) were satisfied with their research experience, and 53% (36/67) supported mandatory projects. Half (87/174) felt research was important for career development, 72% (44/61) considered initiating research post-training, and 54% (33/61) participated in it. Commonly expressed themes were time-burden of conducting projects, production of research waste, and the importance of research for skills development. Of the 34 submitted reports, 75% were published and 82% had a clear research question. Only three had a low risk of bias. Conclusion: Majority of respondents conducted projects, but few shared details or reports. Despite valuing their research experiences and seeing clinical relevance, time conflicts and research waste were common concerns. Colleges should focus on enhanced research methods training and creating trainee research collaboratives. Protocol registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/BNGZK\",\"PeriodicalId\":501387,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"medRxiv - Medical Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"medRxiv - Medical Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.11.24303739\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.11.24303739","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的探讨医学见习生对学院规定的研究项目的体验和看法。设置:在线调查(2021 年 4 月至 12 月):通过 11 所主要学院和 "滚雪球 "的方式,对澳大利亚和新西兰学院的现任和前任受训人员进行调查:当前受训人员或在过去 5 年中完成培训的人员。主要结果测量:我们询问受访者:是否要求他们在学院培训中开展研究、他们是如何开展研究的,以及他们在培训后的研究活动。我们邀请受访者提交项目报告,以便进行报告和方法质量评估。我们对数据进行了描述性分析。结果:在 372 名受访者中,313 人(86%)需要完成一个或多个项目。在已完成项目的 177 人(代表 267 个项目)中,76 人提供了 92 项研究的信息,其中 34 份报告已提交评估。大多数受访者自己提出了研究问题、研究设计和方案,并利用自己的时间开展了研究,其中 56%(38/68)的受访者表示自己具备完成项目的技能。大多数项目团队由他们自己的医学专业人员组成,其次是统计人员,但很少有其他人员。44%(30/68)的人对自己的研究经历感到满意,53%(36/67)的人支持强制性项目。一半(87/174)的人认为研究对职业发展很重要,72%(44/61)的人考虑在培训后开展研究,54%(33/61)的人参与了研究。共同表达的主题是开展项目的时间负担、产生研究废物以及研究对技能发展的重要性。在提交的 34 份报告中,75% 已发表,82% 有明确的研究问题。只有三份报告存在较低的偏差风险。结论:大多数受访者开展了项目,但很少有人分享细节或报告。尽管他们重视自己的研究经历并认为与临床相关,但时间冲突和研究浪费是他们普遍关注的问题。各学院应重点加强研究方法培训,并建立受训者研究合作组织。协议注册:https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/BNGZK
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A cross sectional survey of Australian and New Zealand specialist trainees research experiences and outputs.
Objective: To explore medical trainees experiences and views concerning college-mandated research projects. Setting: Online survey (Apr-Dec 2021) of current and recent past trainees of Australian and New Zealand colleges recruited through 11 principal colleges and snowballing. Participants: Current trainee or completed training in the past 5 years. Main outcome measures: We asked participants: whether they were required to conduct research as part of their college training, how they conducted their research, and their research activity after training. Respondents were invited to submit project reports for reporting and methodological quality evaluation. Data were analysed descriptively. Results: Of the 372 respondents, 313 (86%) were required to complete one or more projects. Of the 177 who had completed their project (representing 267 projects), 76 provided information on 92 studies, with 34 reports submitted for evaluation. Most respondents developed their own research questions, study design and protocol, and conducted research in their own time, with 56% (38/68) stating they had the skills to complete their project. Most project teams consisted of their own medical specialty followed by statisticians, but seldom others. 44% (30/68) were satisfied with their research experience, and 53% (36/67) supported mandatory projects. Half (87/174) felt research was important for career development, 72% (44/61) considered initiating research post-training, and 54% (33/61) participated in it. Commonly expressed themes were time-burden of conducting projects, production of research waste, and the importance of research for skills development. Of the 34 submitted reports, 75% were published and 82% had a clear research question. Only three had a low risk of bias. Conclusion: Majority of respondents conducted projects, but few shared details or reports. Despite valuing their research experiences and seeing clinical relevance, time conflicts and research waste were common concerns. Colleges should focus on enhanced research methods training and creating trainee research collaboratives. Protocol registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/BNGZK
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信