A mandatory intercalated degree programme: Revitalising and enhancing academic and evidence-based medicine

Figures & data

Table

Practice points

Declining interest in biomedical research is of concern Intercalating an additional degree focusing on research might address this This demands a level of maturity, autonomy and preparedness not possessed by all students undertaking such a programme A more realistic goal is the development of ‘research-mindedness’ or the way of thinking as a researcher amongst all students

Table 1.  Learning objectives for the AMS Year

• Provide an introduction to the process of research work in a field related to medicine, including critical appraisal of the literature

• Encourage an understanding of the diversity and breadth of medicine

• Enable the development of skills in the ways in which knowledge (evidence) should be assembled and evaluated to provide a scientific rationale for updating medical practice and treatment

• Foster an understanding of the benefits of research and the value of each health professional contributing to the advancement of knowledge

• Encourage further learning in areas of relevance to medicine

• Encourage oral and written communication skills

• Encourage the development of skills in the use of simple statistical techniques when appraising health data

• Encourage the development of autonomy and independence in defining areas for study, locating relevant resources and evaluating information

Table 2.  Number and percentage of students in each cohort who completed the AMS programme in Australia or overseas

	Cohort
	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	Overall	Percent
Australia	164	170	172	163	178	179	206	183	1415	88.5
Singapore	6	1	3	4	10	7	0	7	38	2.4
USA	3	10	6	1	0	1	1	4	26	1.6
UK	3	1	9	12	6	10	4	15	60	3.8
Other	2	6	10	12	11	5	2	12	60	3.8
Total	178	188	200	192	205	202	213	221	1599

Table 3.  Number and percentage of each cohort who carried out different levels of research

		Research component as % of AMS year
Cohort	Students	<75%	75%	87.5%	100%
2001	178	68 (38%)	21 (12%)	66 (37%)	23 (13%)
2002	188	64 (34%)	18 (10%)	75 (40%)	31 (16%)
2003	200	42 (21%)	22 (11%)	89 (45%)	47 (23%)
2004	192	35 (18%)	23 (12%)	78 (41%)	56 (29%)
2005	205	20 (10%)	40 (20%)	67 (33%)	78 (38%)
2006	202	25 (12%)	41 (20%)	36 (18%)	100 (50%)
2007	213	20 (9%)	26 (12%)	55 (26%)	112 (52%)
2008	221	16 (7%)	26 (12%)	57 (26%)	122 (55%)
Total	1599	290 (18%)	217 (13%)	523 (33%)	569 (36%)

Table 4.  Numbers and percentages of AMS students in key areas of research

		Area of research
Cohort	Students	Lab	Clinical	Other
2001	178	78 (44%)	52 (29%)	48 (27%)
2002	188	70 (37%)	64 (34%)	54 (29%)
2003	200	75 (37%)	65 (33%)	60 (30%)
2004	192	72 (37%)	68 (35%)	52 (27%)
2005	205	73 (36%)	75 (37%)	57 (28%)
2006	202	77 (38%)	75 (37%)	50 (25%)
2007	213	81 (38%)	80 (38%)	52 (24%)
2008	221	89 (40%)	86 (39%)	46 (21%)
Total	1599	615 (39%)	565 (36%)	419 (26.8%)

Figure 1. Relationship between final AMS score and Semesters 1–5 aggregate for all 1378 students in 2001–2007 cohorts. Correlation = 0.403.