These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [What can structured doctoral programs contribute to ensure quality of medical dissertations and scientific careers/junior promotion? An evaluation using the "Experimental Medicine" program initiative of Ulm University as an example].
    Author: Claudia GK, Achim S, Oliver K, Benjamin M, Thomas W, Thomas B, Wolfgang O, Markus HL.
    Journal: Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes; 2019 Nov; 147-148():110-119. PubMed ID: 31732385.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: Structured doctoral programs in medicine are intended to contribute to the quality of medical dissertations/doctoral theses by providing scientific skills and also inspire doctoral candidates to pursue a career in research. Here we present the potential contributions of the doctoral program "Experimental Medicine" of Ulm University with regard to the increase of individual quality indicators, e. g., the duration and evaluation of the doctoral theses as well as the study participants' scientific career intentions and current field of activity. METHODS: All previous participants of the doctoral program (N = 144) were contacted as well as medical graduates with an experimental doctorate as individual doctorate (control group) (N = 559) who had submitted a doctoral thesis in the same period. The response rate was 55.4 % (N = 72) among program participants versus 21.7 % (N = 116) in the control group. Information on the doctoral thesis process, scientific and professional careers and quality indicators were collected in an online survey and compared statistically using U-tests or Chi-square tests. The participants' evaluation of the program and their confidence in scientific competences, rated on a 5-point rating scale, were outlined descriptively. RESULTS: Program participants were satisfied with the supervision of their work (M 2.17; SD 0.84). According to the participants' evaluation, particular support was given to increase competence in scientific presentations (M 1.9; SD 0.83), in literature research (M 2.21; SD 0.96) and in the critical appraisal of scientific publications (M 2.28; SD 0.91). However, they felt comparatively less competent regarding the selection of research methods (M 3.21; SD 1.11) and the application of statistical methods (M 3.53; SD 1.13). Program participants needed less time to complete their doctoral theses than the control group (median 4 years versus 5 years) and received the overall grade of "summa cum laude" (excellent) more frequently (22.9 % versus 2.7 %). In comparison, their doctoral theses were more often part of third-party funded projects (59 % versus 36.1 %). In addition, the participants more frequently wished to pursue a habilitation (29.2 % versus 13.3 %) or aspire to an academic career (13.9 % versus 1.7 %). CONCLUSIONS: Despite methodological limitations, the results support the structured doctoral program, particularly with regard to the duration and evaluation of the doctorate. The program should be further optimized, though, with respect to specific aspects, particularly in terms of "career paths in research".
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]