Meeting the Shared Goals of a Student-Selected Component: Pilot Evaluation of a Collaborative Systematic Review.
collaboration
collaborative
curricula
curriculum
information science
library science
medical education
medical librarian
medical school
medical student
methodology
research methodology
research training
review
search strategy
student-selected component
systematic review
Journal
JMIR medical education
ISSN: 2369-3762
Titre abrégé: JMIR Med Educ
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101684518
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Mar 2023
15 Mar 2023
Historique:
received:
12
05
2022
accepted:
28
02
2023
revised:
24
12
2022
entrez:
15
3
2023
pubmed:
16
3
2023
medline:
16
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
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.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
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.
METHODS
METHODS
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).
RESULTS
RESULTS
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).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This collaborative approach appears to be a potentially useful method of providing students with research experience; however, it requires further evaluation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36920459
pii: v9i1e39210
doi: 10.2196/39210
pmc: PMC10132035
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e39210Informations de copyright
©Faheem Bhatti, Oliver Mowforth, Max Butler, Zainab Bhatti, Amir Rafati Fard, Isla Kuhn, Benjamin M Davies. Originally published in JMIR Medical Education (https://mededu.jmir.org), 15.03.2023.
Références
Med Teach. 2004 Feb;26(1):33-8
pubmed: 14744692
Med Teach. 2005 Dec;27(8):720-5
pubmed: 16451894
Med Teach. 2016 Oct;38(10):1041-1048
pubmed: 27008336
Med Teach. 2010;32(3):e152-60
pubmed: 20218832
BMC Med Educ. 2020 Oct 28;20(1):389
pubmed: 33115465
J Clin Med. 2020 Jan 20;9(1):
pubmed: 31968564
J Investig Med. 2006 May;54(4):201-7
pubmed: 17152859
Global Spine J. 2019 May;9(1 Suppl):65S-76S
pubmed: 31157148
Med Teach. 2013 Nov;35(11):e1561-72
pubmed: 24004029
Acad Med. 2010 Mar;85(3):438-52
pubmed: 20182116
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2021 Jun;163(6):1561-1568
pubmed: 33625603
PLoS One. 2015 Jun 18;10(6):e0127470
pubmed: 26086391
Teach Learn Med. 2008 Apr-Jun;20(2):163-7
pubmed: 18444204
BMJ Open. 2019 Oct 10;9(10):e031486
pubmed: 31601597
Med Teach. 2019 Apr;41(4):471-475
pubmed: 29361869
BMJ Open. 2016 Oct 21;6(10):e013523
pubmed: 27798036
Adv Med Educ Pract. 2017 Jan 13;8:63-73
pubmed: 28144171
Nutr Metab Insights. 2021 Oct 30;14:11786388211054664
pubmed: 34733105
Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 5;5(1):210
pubmed: 27919275
BMC Med Educ. 2013 Dec 28;13:175
pubmed: 24373230
Global Spine J. 2022 Feb;12(1_suppl):8S-18S
pubmed: 34879754
Br J Neurosurg. 2023 Feb;37(1):71-81
pubmed: 34791981
Spinal Cord. 2021 Dec;59(12):1221-1239
pubmed: 34392312
Age Ageing. 2021 May 5;50(3):705-715
pubmed: 33219816
Nurse Res. 1996 Oct 1;4(1):15-26
pubmed: 27707372