CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 9Ethics in Clinical ResearchInnovations in Medical EducationHealth and Medical Research Impacts

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Professional Responsibilities and Personal Impacts: Residents’ Experiences as Participants in Education Research

Devine, Luke A., Ginsburg, Shiphra, Stenfors, Terese, Cil, Tulin D., McDonald-Blumer, Heather, Walsh, Catharine M., Stroud, Lynfa·2019·Academic Medicine
DOI 10.1097/acm.0000000000002411
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: Although the field of medical education research is growing and residents are increasingly recruited to participate as subjects in research studies, little is known about their experiences. The goal of this study was to explore the experiences and perceptions of residents who are study participants in medical education research. Method: A phenomenographic approach was chosen to examine the range of residents’ experiences as research participants. A maximum variation sampling strategy was used to identify residents with diverse experiences. Semistructured interviews that explored experiences as research participants were conducted with 19 residents in internal medicine, general surgery, and pediatrics at the University of Toronto in 2015–2016. Results: The perceptions and experiences of participants fell into two categories. First, participation was seen as a professional responsibility to advance the profession, including a desire to improve future educational practices and a sense of responsibility to contribute to the academic cause. Second, the experience was noted for its personal impact, including benefits (e.g., receiving monetary incentives or novel educational experiences) and risks (e.g., coercion and breaches of confidentiality). The time required to participate in a study was identified as one of the most important factors affecting willingness to participate and the impact of participation. Conclusions: Being a participant in medical education research can be perceived in different ways. Understanding the view of resident participants is important to optimize potential benefits and minimize risks and negative consequences for them, thus fostering ready participation and high-quality research.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/acm.0000000000002411

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Devine, L. A., Ginsburg, S., Stenfors, T., Cil, T. D., McDonald-Blumer, H., Walsh, C. M., & Stroud, L.
Affiliations
  • University Health Network (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
Corresponding author
Devine, Luke A.
ORCID
Venue
Academic Medicine
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2019-01
Volume
94
Issue
1
Pages
115-121
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/acm.0000000000002411
OpenAlex
W2885937091
Cited by
9
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2
FWCI
0.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health and Medical Research Impacts
Keywords
medical residents, research participation, medical education research, participant experiences, professional responsibility, personal impact, coercion, breach of confidentiality, financial incentives, willingness to participate, research ethics, internal medicine residents, general surgery residents, pediatric residents
MeSH terms
Adult, Education, Medical, Female, Humans, Internship and Residency, Male, Ontario, Patient Participation, Surveys and Questionnaires, Students, Medical, Professional Role, Biomedical Research, Qualitative Research, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review