Do medical students differ according to preclinical or clinical access to undergraduate research?

I enjoyed reading the interesting study by Santos et al. on undergraduate scientific research¹. The authors applied a relevant questionnaire to a representative sample of students from seven medical schools in Salvador. They aimed to verify the multiple factors involved in medical students’ research exposure¹.

Among the findings, the authors confirmed the high prevalence of interest in (and motivation for) research involvement in samples of Brazilian medical students, as reported in previous studies^2),(3. They also noticed no variation in motivation for research between pre-clinical and clinical students and offered desirable evidence of program productivity in terms of student-co-authored publications¹. Again, this study registered the hindrances, as perceived by medical students, on time availability, faculty guidance, and institutional opportunities and resources, for their engagement in adequate and productive research^1)-(3.

My further remarks pertain to differentiating between early-entry (pre-clinical) and late-entry (clinical) research exposure based on students’ motivation and expectations. This distinction was undisclosed in that study¹.

In contrast, I offer below findings about antecedents, experiences, and outcomes of undergraduate research exposure at a public university medical program. Those findings stem from data compilation involving the 55 semi-annual classes in three decades of the medical program intermediate curriculum.

Thus, referring to undergraduate research, 112 early-entry students − compared with 572 late-entry students − displayed the following differences, expressed in percentages, odds ratios (OR), and confidence intervals (CI):

1. Higher frequency of second-semester peer tutoring in basic science courses (28.2% vs. 12.5%, OR = 2.8, 95% CI = 1.8; 4.2).

2. Stronger research career attraction (27.0% vs. 15.3%, OR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.1; 3.7), after the first year of medical studies.

3. Longer durations (two years or more) of undergraduate research (28.0% vs. 10.7%, OR = 3.3, 95% CI = 2.1; 3.9).

4. Higher productivity, in terms of co-authored publications (20.6% vs. 13.6%; OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.1; 2.6).

5. Higher acceptance in (and conclusion of) a PhD program at top universities (11.5% vs. 4.4%, OR = 2.8, 95% CI = 1.1; 7.6).

Likewise, analysis from a stratum (N= 1307) with data on the Academic Motivation Scale⁴, revealed that early-entry − compared to late-entry − students showed a lower index of controlled motivation (M= 3.65 SD= 1.31 vs. M= 4.01 SD= 1.34; d= .266, 95% CI= .040; .492). However, they showed an equally superior index of autonomous motivation. Moreover, early entrants were a majority in the (minority) student cluster featuring higher levels of autonomous motivation, paired with lower levels of controlled motivation. In contrast, there were no notable distinctions in admission age, sex distribution, and grade-point average between early- and late-entry students (All p > .14).

In conclusion, contrary to hints given by Santos et al.¹, the findings above denote noteworthy differences between research exposure early and late entrants, which may relate to diverse backgrounds, mindsets, or mentorship influences.

References

• ¹ Santos FSM, Carvalho SFC, Freitas Junior LRC, Oliveira IA, Cunha CLS, Avena KM. Teaching scientific research in medical graduation: is there interest and involvement of the students? Rev Bras Educ Med 2023; 47 (3):1-8. DOI: 10.1590/1981-5271v47.3-2022-0260
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-5271v47.3-2022-0260
• ² Oliveira CC, Souza RC, Abe EHS, Móz LES, Carvalho LR, Domingues MAC. Undergraduate research in medical education: a descriptive study of students’ views. BMC Med Educ 2014, 14:51. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6920-14-51
  » https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-14-51
• ³ Moraes DW, Jotz M, Menegazzo WR, Menegazzo MS, Veloso S, Machry MC, et al. Interest In research among medical students: challenges for the undergraduate education. Rev Assoc Med Bras. 2016;62(7):652-8. DOI: 10.1590/1806-9282.62.07.652
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.62.07.652
• ⁴ Sobral DT. What kind of motivation drives medical students’ learning quests? Med Educ. 2004;38(9):950-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01913.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01913.x

• 6
  Evaluated by double blind review process.
• SOURCES OF FUNDING
  The authors declare no sources of funding.

• Chief Editor: Rosiane Viana Zuza Diniz. Associate Editor: Daniela Chiesa.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  03 Feb 2025
• Date of issue
  2025

History

• Received
  03 Sept 2024
• Accepted
  16 Oct 2024