Volume 216 - Issue 11
Selection criteria for Australian and New Zealand medical specialist training programs: another under‐recognised driver of research waste
Authors: Paulina Stehlik, Caitlyn Withers and Caitlin Brandenburg
Med J Aust 2022; 216 (11): 594-594. || doi: 10.5694/mja2.51551
Published online: 20 June 2022
Published online: 20 June 2022
In reply
In reply: We thank the authors from the TASMAN Collaborative1 for their support of our article2 and whole‐heartedly agree: contribution to student‐ and trainee‐led collaborative groups can lead to the development of research skills and, more importantly, produce high quality research.3,4
However, we feel the problems go deeper than selection criteria alone. Our curriculum review of 58 principal colleges and their subspecialties also found an emphasis on trainees leading research, rather than using it or participating in it, and inadequate standards for research training and project supervision.5
This emphasis on leading research throughout a doctor’s career does not align with their career trajectory.6 Furthermore, without the right support trainees are unlikely to produce quality research and are likely to be disenchanted by the research process.6 A fundamental overhaul is required.
With a collaboration of 11 principal Australian and New Zealand specialty training colleges, several national and international universities, and former Australian Medical Council members, we have recently set up the ENHANCE program: Enhancing the Research Development of Medical Specialty Trainees. This program of work aims to explore and improve the research expectations and training set by specialist medical colleges.7 We aim to develop a core research curriculum that is applicable across all colleges. This may include alternative models of methods training (eg, training courses rather than leading projects) and of conducting research (eg, contributing to large collaborative projects, such as those mentioned by the TASMAN Collaborative); however, unlike the status quo, these learning activities need to be constructively aligned with the competencies they aim to develop. We welcome additional collaborators to reach out to us.
Competing interests
No relevant disclosures.
Acknowledgements
We thank Professor Paul Glasziou and Christy Noble for their comments.
References
- TASMAN Collaborative. Selection criteria for Australian and New Zealand medical specialist training programs: another under‐recognised driver of research waste [letter]. Med J Aust 2022; 216: 594.
- Withers C, Noble C, Brandenburg C, et al. Selection criteria for Australian and New Zealand medical specialist training programs: another under‐recognised driver of research waste. Med J Aust 2021; 215: 336‐336. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2021/215/7/selection‐criteria‐australian‐and‐new‐zealand‐medical‐specialist‐training
- Chapman SJ, Glasbey JCD, Khatri C, et al. Promoting research and audit at medical school: evaluating the educational impact of participation in a student‐led national collaborative study. BMC Med Educ 2015; 15: 47.
- Jamjoom AAB, Phan PNH, Hutchinson PJ, Kolias AG. Surgical trainee research collaboratives in the UK: an observational study of research activity and publication productivity. BMJ Open 2016; 6: e010374.
- Stehlik P, Noble C, Brandenburg C, et al. How do trainee doctors learn about research? Content analysis of Australian specialist colleges’ intended research curricula. BMJ Open 2020; 10: e034962.
- Altman DG. The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ 1994; 308: 283‐284.
- Stehlik P. ENHANCE project: Enhancing the Research Development of Medical Specialty Trainees Robina: Bond University, 2021. https://iebh.bond.edu.au/our‐research/enhance‐project‐enhancing‐research‐development‐medical‐specialty‐trainees (viewed May 2022).
Linked content
-
MJA Letter: https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2021/215/7/selection-criteria-australian-and-new-zealand-medical-specialist-training
-
MJA Letter: Selection criteria for Australian and New Zealand medical specialist training programs: another under‐recognised driver of research waste