Promoting Scholarly Activity in Pediatric Postgraduate Training: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is limited guidance on best practices for integrating scholarly activities into pediatric postgraduate training. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the evidence on interventions that aim to promote scholarly activity among pediatric trainees. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and ProQuest ERIC. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies reporting interventions that aimed to increase scholarly activity among pediatric residents and general pediatric/subspecialty fellows. The primary outcome was scholarly activity, defined as participation in scholarly projects, presentations, publications, and grants related to basic science or clinical research, quality improvement, and medical education. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We categorized included studies by intervention type. RESULTS: Of 6181 studies screened, 23 were included. Four studies specified including training in quality improvement or medical education. Intervention types included longitudinal curriculum (n = 1), specialized elective/stream (n = 5), mentorship (n = 2), administrative mandate (n = 4), funding support/research award (n = 2), gamification (n = 1), short-term curriculum (n = 3), and longitudinal curriculum plus mentorship (n = 5). Of 16 studies with comparison data, 13 (81%) showed improvement in at least 1 primary outcome in the intervention group compared to control. Where comparison data were available, specialized electives/streams and short-term curricula were associated with increased presentations and/or publications, while other intervention types showed mixed results. CONCLUSION: Various evidence-based interventions can promote scholarly activity among pediatric trainees. Implementing specialized electives/streams and short-term curricula may improve scholarly activity without a substantial time investment. Future research should assess trainee scholarly needs and include a more rigorous assessment of interventions to promote scholarly activity, particularly in quality improvement and medical education, with appropriate comparison groups.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.262 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".