Determining expected research skills of medical students on graduation : a systematic review

Background: Global interest in research skills in undergraduate medical education is growing. There is no consensus regarding expected research skills of medical students on graduation. We conducted a systematic review to determine the aims and intended learning outcomes (ILOs) of mandatory research components of undergraduate medical curricula incorporating the teaching, assessment, and evaluation methods of these programs. Methods: Using the PRISMA protocol, MEDLINE and ERIC databases were searched with keywords related to “medical student research programs” for relevant articles published up until February 2020. Thematic analysis was conducted according to student experience/reactions, mentoring/career development, and knowledge/skill development. Results: Of 4880 citations, 41 studies from 30 institutions met the inclusion criteria. Programs were project-based in 24 (80%) and coursework only–based in 6 (20%). Program aims/ILOs were stated in 24 programs (80%). Twenty-seven different aims/ILOs were identified: 19 focused on knowledge/skill development, 4 on experience/reactions, and 4 on mentoring/career development. Project-based programs aimed to provide an in-depth research experience, foster/increase research skills, and critically appraise scientific literature. Coursework-based programs aimed to foster/apply analytical skills for decision-making in healthcare and critically appraise scientific literature. Reporting of interventions was often incomplete, short term, and single institution. There was poor alignment between aims, teaching, assessment, and evaluation methods in most. Conclusions: The diversity of teaching programs highlights challenges in defining core competencies in research skills for medical graduates. Incomplete reporting limits the evidence for effective research skills education; we recommend those designing and reporting educational interventions adopt recognized educational reporting criteria when describing their findings. Whether students learn by “doing”, “proposing to do”, or “critiquing”, good curriculum design requires constructive alignment between teaching, assessment, and evaluation methods, aims, and outcomes. Peer-reviewed publications and presentations only evaluate one aspect of the student research experience.