No consensus on research skills in medical curricula perpetuates the unmet need for clinician researchers
Despite increasing emphasis on research translation, underpinned by the growth in hospital- university health precincts (“academic health centres”), there is a persistent and unmet need for clinician researchers in Australia and New Zealand.1,2,3 Such careers and the relevance of learning research remains opaque to medical students, and expectations for graduate research competencies are unclear. Unlike clinical skills, there is no consensus on the research skills that Australian and New Zealand medical graduates should acquire.4,5 Australia is not alone; these gaps are reported internationally with calls for better defined core competencies in research that would enable purposeful design of learning outcomes and assessment.4,6,7 Although an absence of agreed expectations for research training is seen across the continuum of undergraduate to specialty education and training, this article focuses on primary medical education for all medical students, only some of whom will become clinician researchers.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. Windsor J, Garrod T, Talley NJ, et al. The clinical academic workforce in Australia and New Zealand: report on the second binational summit to implement a sustainable training pathway. Intern Med J 2017; 47: 394‐399.
- 2. Willcox S. Creating and sustaining the next generation of the clinical academic workforce: issues and strategies for Australia and New Zealand. Medical Deans Australia and New Zealand, 2011. https://medicaldeans.org.au/md/2018/07/201108‐Clinical‐Academic‐Workforce‐DP‐19‐Aug‐2011.pdf (viewed Mar 2022).
- 3. Group of Eight Australia. Strengthening Australian clinical research — Group of Eight submission to the Medical Workforce Reform Advisory Committee. Go8, 2020. https://go8.edu.au/wp‐content/uploads/2020/12/Go8‐AICRTP‐FINAL.pdf (viewed Mar 2022).
- 4. Lee MGY, Hu WCY, Bilszta JLC. Determining expected research skills of medical students on graduation: a systematic review. Med Sci Edu 2020; 30: 1465‐1479.
- 5. Research Committee of the Medical Deans of Australia and New Zealand. Research in the curriculum survey, final report. MDANZ, 2020. https://medicaldeans.org.au/md/2020/12/MDANZ‐Report‐on‐Research‐in‐the‐Curriculum‐Survey‐2019.pdf (viewed Mar 2022).
- 6. Weggemans MM, Ter Haar NM, Prakken B, Ten Cate O. Developing entrustable professional activities for the training of translational scientists: a modified Delphi study. Acad Med 2021; 96: 1461‐1466.
- 7. Cruser dA, Brown SK, Ingram JR, et al. Practitioner research literacy skills in undergraduate medical education: thinking globally, acting locally. Med Sci Educ 2012; 22: 162‐184.
- 8. Australian Medical Council Limited. Standards for assessment and accreditation of primary medical programs by the Australian Medical Council 2012. https://www.amc.org.au/wp‐content/uploads/2019/10/Standards‐for‐Assessment‐and‐Accreditation‐of‐Primary‐Medical‐Programs‐by‐the‐Australian‐Medical‐Council‐2012.pdf (viewed Mar 2022).
- 9. Murdoch‐Eaton D, Whittle S. Generic skills in medical education: developing the tools for successful lifelong learning. Med Educ 2012; 46: 120‐128.
- 10. Frenk J, Chen L, Bhutta ZA, et al. Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. Lancet 2010; 376: 1923‐1958.
- 11. Cheek C, Hays R, Smith J. What’s in a name? Research learning outcomes in primary medical education. The Asia Pacific Scholar 2021; 6: 99‐103.
- 12. Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. What we do [website]. https://www.teqsa.gov.au/what‐we‐do (viewed Mar 2022).
- 13. Australian Qualifications Framework, 2nd ed. AQF, 2013; pp. 59‐62. https://www.aqf.edu.au/framework/australian‐qualifications‐framework (viewed Mar 2022).
- 14. Cornett M, Palermo C, Wallace MJ, et al. A realist review of scholarly experiences in medical education. Med Educ 2021; 55: 159‐166.
- 15. Havnaer AG, Chen AJ, Greenberg PB. Scholarly concentration programs and medical student research productivity: a systematic review. Perspect Med Educ 2017; 6: 216‐226.
- 16. Hoffmann T, Bennett S, Del Mar C. Evidence‐based practice across the health professions, 3rd ed. Elsevier Australia, 2017.
- 17. Lee GSJ, Chin YH, Jiang AA, et al. Teaching medical research to medical students: a systematic review. Med Sci Educ 2021; 31: 945‐962.
- 18. Weston KM, Mullan JR, McLennan PL. Building research capacity through community‐based projects. Med Educ 2010; 44: 496‐497.
- 19. Medical Deans of Australia and New Zealand. Research in the Medical Curriculum in Australia and New Zealand 2021 ‐ a window on innovation and good practice. MDANZ, 2021. https://medicaldeans.org.au/category/research‐case‐studies/ (viewed Mar 2022).
- 20. Woolley T, Halili SD, Siega‐Sur JL, et al. Socially accountable medical education strengthens community health services. Med Educ 2018; 52: 391‐403.
A complete list of Nicholas Talley's disclosures is available at https://www.mja.com.au/journal/staff/editor‐chief‐professor‐nick‐talley. Diann Eley and Wendy Hu have no competing interests associated with this article.