Are research training requirements for Australian specialist trainees appropriate?

Abstract

Background/objectivesPatients do better in research-intense environments. The importance of research is reflected in the medical trainee program accreditation requirements. However, the nature of college mandated research development, including scholarly projects, has not been systematically explored.We aimed to examine the research development curricula of Australian medical colleges and the stages of research engagementMethodsWe mapped the curricula of Australian medical colleges and their subspecialties, reviewing all publicly accessible information from college websites, including curricula, handbooks, and assessment-related documents. Research-related activities were coded as learning outcomes, learning activities, or assessments; and by research stage (using, participating in, or leading research). We codedlearning and assessment activities by type (formal research training, thesis, publication, etc.), whether it was mandatory and/or repeated, linked to a scholarly project, and the project supervisor{\textquoteright}s research experience.Results55 of 58 Australian colleges and sub-specialty divisions had a scholarly project requirement; but only 11 required formal research training and only two colleges required a research experienced project supervisor. Colleges emphasised leading research in their learning objectives and assessments, but notlearning activities. Less emphasis was placed on using research, and almost no emphasis on participation. Overall, most learning and assessment activities related to completion of a scholarly project.ConclusionIt is concerning that colleges place emphasis on leading research and research deliverables, but not research training and supervision by suitably qualified staff.Colleges may be indirectly contributing to the growing reproducibility crisis and wastage in medical research but are also well positioned to improve research quality and reduce waste.