Cheek, Colleen, Hays, Richard, and Smith, Janie (2021) What’s in a name? Research learning outcomes in primary medical education. Asia Pacific Scholar, 6 (3). pp. 99-103.

Preview

PDF (Published Version) - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial. Download (249kB) | Preview

 

1

600

Abstract

[Extract] Research ability is considered important in preparing medical graduates for their future work roles, providing openness to critical inquiry and astute information management (Frenk et al., 2010). The role of knowledge integrator, facilitator, and advisor, incorporating finely-tuned judgement, reasoning and decision-making, are important in achieving the leadership expected of the profession (Frenk et al., 2010). Engaging medical students in research training has historically proven challenging, and there is variable understanding of the level expected in primary medical training.

Most medical schools in Australia have now adopted a Master’s Level ‘Medical Doctorate’ (MD) for primary medical training. Both the Australian Qualifications Framework (2013) requirements (pertaining to the level of qualification) and the Australian Medical Council (AMC) standards (pertaining to the profession) expect graduates of an MD to have understanding of research principles, process and methods, and to be able to apply these to professional practice (Australian Medical Council Limited, 2012). Many schools have interpreted this as a requirement for more intensive research training. While research knowledge and skills are integrated throughout curricula, there is substantial variation in the way these are taught, and little evidence of effective learning exists.

Actions (Repository Staff Only)

Item Control Page