Transmutations in a Research Curriculum: Seeking to Encourage Enthusiasm for the Research Process in a Psychiatry Residency

Objective:
Assess the Psychiatry Residency Research Curriculum’s effectiveness in encouraging community-based residents’ enthusiasm for and developing confidence in research knowledge and skills.


Methods:
Initial and post- surveys created in RedCap®. Initial survey had response rate of 88%, n=15; post-survey a response rate of 53%, n=9. Surveys were analyzed and interpreted to provide insights into the strengths and gaps in the curriculum.


Results:
Initial survey indicated sixty percent thought it was important to have protected research time. Over half indicated receiving guidance from a mentor was important. The post-survey suggested a trend toward both increased unenthusiasm and increased enthusiasm for research. An open-ended question asked what could increase their enthusiasm and yielded: want to identify project that is meaningful contribution; need a dedicated mentor; and nothing could increase enthusiasm. The post-survey indicated that over half felt “somewhat confident” with their research skills while twenty-two percent said they were “somewhat unconfident.” A limitation to being able to provide direct comparisons of the surveys is that of a small cohort (n=17), fewer responded to the post-survey (n=9) compared to the initial survey (n=15).

Throughout the years, faculty have been responsive to the needs of the residents; therefore, several transmutations were made to the curriculum since 2018. Included are decrease in number of sessions from nineteen to thirteen. During 2020-21, the faculty instituted that instead of launching a research project, residents write up a psychiatric case report for which residents also provide blinded peer review. This provides opportunity to both learn to write a case report and practice peer review. Further to increase accountability in discussions, pre-assignments are now required. This has also been helpful in increasing engagement since the curriculum had to move online because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The course is now pass/fail.


Conclusions:
This evaluation has allowed the research faculty to better understand how to meet both accreditation requirements for the residency as well as the needs of residents who have specifically chosen a community-based residency instead of a residency based at an academic research institution. Although research is not everyone’s “cup of tea,” we do think the curriculum provided more experience with critical analysis and encouraged informed consumption of studies. It introduced the peer review process which is important in publication of robust literature. Cultivating enthusiasm for research is elusive; however, we do believe that the curriculum instilled an appreciation for the rigor that is needed in meaningful research.