↓ Skip to main content

Motivating medical students to do research: a mixed methods study using Self-Determination Theory

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Motivating medical students to do research: a mixed methods study using Self-Determination Theory
Published in
BMC Medical Education, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12909-015-0379-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sara K. Rosenkranz, Shaoyu Wang, Wendy Hu

Abstract

It is widely accepted that all medical graduates should understand the uses and methods of rigorous research, with a need to promote research to graduates who will pursue an academic career. This study aimed to explore, identify and explain what motivates and demotivates medical students to do research. A convergent parallel mixed methods study was conducted. Cross-sectional quantitative survey data (n = 579) and qualitative semi-structured interview findings (n = 23) data were separately collected and analysed. Informed by Self-Determination Theory (SDT), quantitative and qualitative findings were integrated to develop a model for the factors associated with medical students' expressed motivation to do research, and related to clinical and research learning activities at different stages in an undergraduate medical program. Only 7.5 % of students had research experience prior to entering the program. Survey results revealed that students who had experienced exposure to the uncertainties of clinical practice through clerkships (Pre-Clinical (48 %) vs Clinical Years (64 %), p < 0.001), and a sense of achievement through supported compulsory research activities, which were conducted as a team (Pre- Community Research (51 %) vs Post-Community Research (66 %), p < 0.001) were more likely to view future research activities positively. When integrated with qualitative findings using the three SDT domains of autonomy, competence and relatedness, eight major themes were identified: Self & Time, Career, Bureaucracy, Financial, Confidence, Clinical Relevance, Research as a Social Activity, and Personal Relevance. The findings suggest that motivation to do research is associated with increasing internalization of intrinsic motivators; in particular those associated with competence (Confidence) and relatedness (Clinical Relevance, Research as a Social Activity). SDT is useful for understanding the motivation of individuals and how curriculum can be designed to optimise motivation. Study findings suggest that well supported compulsory research activities that incorporate group learning and elements of choice, may promote motivation to do research, and potentially, careers in research, even in a research naive student body.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 8%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Lecturer 4 6%
Other 17 27%
Unknown 22 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Philosophy 2 3%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 27 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 June 2015.
All research outputs
#13,362,840
of 22,808,725 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,690
of 3,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,078
of 267,796 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#18
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,808,725 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,317 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,796 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.