File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Publication component of the UK foundation programme application: Perception of medical students

TitlePublication component of the UK foundation programme application: Perception of medical students
Authors
KeywordsFoundation programme
Foundation school
Medical students
Publication pressure
UK postgraduate training
Issue Date2020
Citation
Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 2020, v. 11, p. 735-740 How to Cite?
AbstractIntroduction: The 2-year UK foundation programme (FP) application is based on a scoring system and final year medical students are ranked and allocated to their preferred choice of region to work and train in based on their scores following graduation. Points are allocated to academic components including publications. We aim to evaluate UK medical students’ perception of the publication component of the application. Methods: A 15-item online survey based on students’ perception of the publication component of the FP application was distributed to final year medical students from all UK medical schools. Opinions were sought via a 5-point Likert scale. Results: A total of 155 final year medical students from 9 medical schools completed the survey (response rate 155/1926, 8.05%). In the survey, 69.7% of students felt under pressure to achieve PubMed-indexed (PMI) publications, 7.1% were not aware that the FP application included points for PMI publications and 72.9% had no publications at the time of applica-tion. The main reasons for publishing were for the FP application (81.3% agreed) and to increase competitiveness for future specialty training (85.0% agreed). In contrast, 27.1% agreed that they were motivated to publish due to disseminating knowledge; 22.6% and 25.8% agreed that their medical school did not provide adequate training or opportunities for them to achieve PMI publications, respectively. Conclusion: The majority of students felt under pressure to publish with their primary motivation cited as enhancing their FP application. Overall training and opportunities to publish appear to be inadequate amongst the cohort studied. Medical schools should consider providing academic training and opportunities early to highlight the importance and rationale behind research/audits, minimise pressure and optimise research outputs in preparation for FP application.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/328797
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPang, Karl H.-
dc.contributor.authorHobbis, Chloe-
dc.contributor.authorBurleigh, Eleanor J.-
dc.contributor.authorMiah, Saiful-
dc.date.accessioned2023-07-22T06:24:07Z-
dc.date.available2023-07-22T06:24:07Z-
dc.date.issued2020-
dc.identifier.citationAdvances in Medical Education and Practice, 2020, v. 11, p. 735-740-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/328797-
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: The 2-year UK foundation programme (FP) application is based on a scoring system and final year medical students are ranked and allocated to their preferred choice of region to work and train in based on their scores following graduation. Points are allocated to academic components including publications. We aim to evaluate UK medical students’ perception of the publication component of the application. Methods: A 15-item online survey based on students’ perception of the publication component of the FP application was distributed to final year medical students from all UK medical schools. Opinions were sought via a 5-point Likert scale. Results: A total of 155 final year medical students from 9 medical schools completed the survey (response rate 155/1926, 8.05%). In the survey, 69.7% of students felt under pressure to achieve PubMed-indexed (PMI) publications, 7.1% were not aware that the FP application included points for PMI publications and 72.9% had no publications at the time of applica-tion. The main reasons for publishing were for the FP application (81.3% agreed) and to increase competitiveness for future specialty training (85.0% agreed). In contrast, 27.1% agreed that they were motivated to publish due to disseminating knowledge; 22.6% and 25.8% agreed that their medical school did not provide adequate training or opportunities for them to achieve PMI publications, respectively. Conclusion: The majority of students felt under pressure to publish with their primary motivation cited as enhancing their FP application. Overall training and opportunities to publish appear to be inadequate amongst the cohort studied. Medical schools should consider providing academic training and opportunities early to highlight the importance and rationale behind research/audits, minimise pressure and optimise research outputs in preparation for FP application.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofAdvances in Medical Education and Practice-
dc.subjectFoundation programme-
dc.subjectFoundation school-
dc.subjectMedical students-
dc.subjectPublication pressure-
dc.subjectUK postgraduate training-
dc.titlePublication component of the UK foundation programme application: Perception of medical students-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.2147/AMEP.S274757-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85097839381-
dc.identifier.volume11-
dc.identifier.spage735-
dc.identifier.epage740-
dc.identifier.eissn1179-7258-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000577017500001-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats