Study design

All students registered to the undergraduate medicine programme from Stage 1 to Stage 5 were eligible to participate in the study. The UCD Human Research Ethics Committee granted ethical approval for the study and permission to access students was confirmed from Head of School, Dean of Medicine (Ref# LS-17-106-Howell).

An email was sent to all undergraduate medical students explaining the aims of the project, and informing students that focus groups would be carried out for each stage during the semester. For early pre-clinical stages, a brief overview of the aims of the project was explained to the class at the start of a lecture and the students volunteered to attend the focus group immediately after the lecture, with refreshments provided. In the later clinical stages of the degree, where students are based in the teaching hospitals, students were emailed and requested to voluntarily attend a focus group by specialty coordinators. The focus groups were subsequently carried out in the teaching hospitals. Five focus groups, one per stage, were facilitated by an independent research assistant and limited to 10 students per focus group (n = 7 to 10 per focus group).

Methodological rationale and study procedure

Focus groups are a methodological approach utilising group discussion to gather data from a number of people simultaneously. Although not without limitations, they are a particularly useful tool to collect data from a representative selection of a population to identify group attitudes and experiences [17, 18]. A central characteristic of focus groups is that rather than inviting individual responses for each question, they capitalise on the interaction and communication between participants to facilitate an understanding not just of the opinions of participants, but also how those opinions were formed. Focus groups thus encourage participation and interaction, and consequently provide rich content, otherwise difficult to obtain using alternative methods [18]. In this study, the undergraduate medical cohort was considered to be a relatively homogenous population, despite potential differences between the perceived awareness and experience of early-stage and late-stage students. Participants were not pre-defined to specifically represent, for example, those who had an interest in embedding research in their future career, those who had completed research projects or students who had clinical experience and may have a different view of the relevance of research to their clinical career. Rather the random nature of participant recruitment should give a more varied set of responses, pertinent to the undergraduate medical student cohort in general and thus provide a basis for enhancing research and scholarly experiences for all students, not just those with an interest in research.

At the beginning of the focus group, students were given the focus group schedule, project information leaflet and consent form. The research assistant recorded the focus groups on two separate devices, and each focus group lasted approximately 50–60 minutes. The same questions were posed to each of the five focus groups, to ensure comparisons could be made between students’ perceptions and opinions at different stages of their medical degree. The content evolved organically through interactive discussion, meaning that not all students contributed to all questions. Rather, if the group considered their opinions had already been discussed, the research assistant moved to the next question. This approach allows the identification of emerging themes relevant to all medical students, but moreover facilitates the identification of whether these themes are more or less applicable relative to stage, gender or nationality. The focus group schedule used in this project was adapted from one used previously in a large-scale UCD fellowship project evaluating research-teaching linkages across other degree programmes [11].

Data analysis

Audio files from each of the five focus groups were transcribed, and the text was imported into NVivo software for qualitative analysis (QSR International). In total, approximately 5 hours of discussion was transcribed and evaluated. NVivo facilitates organisation of qualitative data in an advanced format that permits cross- referencing, queries and visualisation of data to identify patterns and themes. Students remained anonymous throughout the focus group, however identified themselves by number prior to each dialogue.

Thematic analysis is a method designed to identify and analyse patterns or themes which emerge from qualitative data [19] using the principles defined by Morse (2015) [20]. Each focus group’s transcribed file was coded for thematic analysis by both the author and research assistant independently. Each of the five focus groups was analysed within NVivo as a separate file, allowing identification of comments relative to stage. Each broad question formed a ‘parent node’, and the answers coded within specific ‘child nodes’ according to similar recurring themes. For example, identification of how students were aware of research carried out in UCD (parent node) revealed broad themes such as the ‘built environment’, ‘information from lecturers’, or ‘school emails’, with each of these categories forming a separate child node within the parent node.

Following analysis, each node included a list of linked comments, recognisable by stage. Student answers could be categorised in more than one node depending on the content of the comments. Following the initial analysis, the data was re-evaluated to combine or condense similar nodes or re-categorise if appropriate. Following the second analysis, each node was reviewed to ensure consistency of responses. Recurring themes evident throughout the focus group also emerged during the initial coding process. These nodes were defined and amalgamated during the second analysis phase. The analysis was integrated by incorporating illustrative examples of extracts from the data with the analytical narrative of the coded responses.

Data was thus examined for recurring themes within broad questions and qualitative data was expressed as the number of responses or where appropriate as percentage of total answers in each parent node. NVivo facilitates analysis of responses across stages so that any changes in students’ awareness or perception as they progressed through their degree could be identified. Differences between stages were analysed by performing matrix coding using the nodes as the matrix item and stage as the attribute. Following analysis of the focus groups, the dimensions of research-teaching linkages perceived by the student to be important were identified.

Demographic characteristics

Students participating in the study were all recruited voluntarily and randomly across each of the five stages of undergraduate medicine. Each focus group had 7–10 participants and included 21 men (50%) and 21 women (50%) (Table 1). Penang Medical School (PMC) students, who are awarded a UCD degree but undertake a 5-year degree with their final 2.5 years of clinical training in Malaysia, accounted for four of the nine Stage 2 students but were not represented in the other stages. Students taking part in the focus groups were further categorised based on their nationality. Approximately two thirds (69%) of participants were Irish, 2 students (5%) were from the E.U. namely France and the remaining students represented 7 other countries including Malaysia, Canada, USA, Singapore, Nigeria, Botswana and Australia. This represents the multicultural nature of the course, the university and Ireland in general.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257799.t001

Medical students’ awareness of research

Students were firstly asked whether they were aware that research was carried out in UCD and how that awareness developed. All participants indicated they were aware that research was carried out. There were 69 instances in total where students described how the awareness of research originated, with some students providing more than one example. This awareness stemmed predominantly (30 of the 69 responses) from information imparted by educators associated with the course. Lecturers, and to a lesser extent, demonstrators (often PhD students involved in delivery of practical classes), were mentioned by students across all stages, whereas later stage students, immersed in a clinical setting, were more likely to discuss the influence that clinical tutors had on their awareness of research. Although the lecturer may not have provided sufficient information regarding the precise nature of the research carried out, it made students aware that research was ongoing in the university.

Students’ awareness of research also arose from information sent to them from the school, particularly regarding the SSRA programme (11 of the 69 responses); this peaked at Stage 3 students which corresponds to the most likely stage that undergraduates undertake an SSRA project. Stage 4 and 5 students also discussed an intercalated MSc programme option (6 responses), and the final year medical elective (6 responses), which can potentially be a research project, although this was not widely known. The built environment surrounding the students also heightened their awareness of research activity (6 responses); specifically, students discussed a biomedical research centre adjacent to the Medical School building, but felt somewhat detached from activities within. Other minor influences included information from peers, university reputation and social media.

Medical students’ understanding of research in medicine

Students were then asked about their understanding of what it means to do research in medicine. There were 30 responses in total. Students from all stages referred to improving our understanding of medicine (one third of all responses) and working in a laboratory as examples of what medical research means to them. As the students progressed through the course, their ability to articulate a deeper understanding of what it means to do research in medicine became apparent. Early-stage students refer to medical research as something that increases our understanding of the human body, finding new cures and advancing therapeutics. However, once students have been exposed to a clinical setting, from late Stage 3 onwards, their concept of research in medicine expands to recognise the importance of evidence-based practice, and an understanding of the valuable contribution that clinicians make to medical research and society.

Stage 1, Female

“Erm, I guess it’s about contributing to the field, erm trying to advance it. You know, clinical trials, looking for new drugs to cure diseases that aren’t curable. Trying to progress the drugs and treatments that are out there.”

Stage 5, Male

“I guess my understanding of research in medicine has come on a lot in the last year since we have lectures in hospital with the consultants we see out on the wards, but who also who talk about their research interests. I think that reinforced the idea that medicine is evidence-based and research has to play a key part in it. I feel like when we were book-learning in college and stuff, it didn’t seem… it wasn’t as tangible the link between medicine and research, whereas when you are in hospital you can see that much more clearly, especially when the people you are learning from are talking about it. And erm… I guess the clinicians are best placed to see where improvements could be made. I feel like more so in the last year than in my pre-clinical years I have a gained an understanding of the importance of research.”

Medical students’ exposure to research in their medical degree

Students were next asked to describe instances where they had learned about research, been taught about research, or had any research experiences. Responses were coded as ‘learning about others’ research’ (research-led), ‘learning about research’ (research-tutored), ‘learning by doing research’ (research-based) and ‘learning to do research’ (research-orientated) based on the framework of Healey [11].

Broadly, the undergraduate medical students perception of their experience of research was fairly limited. Early Stage 1 and 2 students in particular articulated that they had little or no research experience. Despite their awareness of research predominantly emanating from staff discussing their research, students rarely described ‘learning about others’ research’ as a research experience. Where students described their research experiences, it was associated with describing research they had carried out i.e. ‘learning by doing research’.

Interviewer:

“Can you identify any instances where you have learned about research, been taught about research, or had any research experiences during your studies?”

Stage 2: Female

“I wouldn’t personally count lectures as like significant contact, so I would answer no to this question.”

Stage 1: Female

“I wouldn’t say we had research experiences. Erm, I don’t know what is available in the school of medicine as it is very far removed from us. Kinda what participant 5 was saying there, I am not sure we can have research at the moment, we are not really sure what is involved. We are not sure what we could add, who is involved in the research. As in, is it to lead research, what knowledge do you need to have? If it is research assistants what do they have to do. We don’t know how able we have to be to actually get involved in SSRA or anything, ‘cos we don’t know what that would mean.”

Stage 4: Male

“In terms of learning about research or being taught about research, we have a lot of lectures across multiple modules across multiple years on research methods and statistics and epidemiology as well. They are not particularly practical, but they give you a good sort of basis in that you emerge with an awareness of what research is, what kind of research exists but it always seems a little bit more theoretical than any sort of practical day to day how to go about it and one thing about these modules is they never include any sort of opportunities–it’s almost like you are studying about research but they don’t seem to presume that you are ever going to be doing research rather that you have an awareness of it so when you are reading a paper you can understand the terminology.”

From Stage 3 onwards, the proportion of students who discussed their personal experiences of doing research, particularly the SSRA, increased. In some cases, late-stage students had undertaken more than one SSRA project or had independently acquired research experiences outside of the university. Approximately one third of the students in the focus group had experience of research through doing an SSRA project. This correlates closely with the number of undergraduate students completing an SSRA project in the medical school.

The impact of research experiences on students’ learning

The impact of research experiences on students’ learning could be categorised broadly as negative or no impact, potential/perceived impact, or positive impact (Fig 1). Approximately one third of responses (18 from 53 comments) stated that research had no impact on their learning, mostly because they had no research experience or occasionally because they did not perceive a relationship between research and learning outcomes or educational experience. In some cases, students did not see a benefit to doing research.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Pie of pie chart showing the impact of research on medical students.

Across all 5 stages, there were 53 references or responses to the impact of research. Over half (53% of 53 responses) suggested that research had a positive impact. These positive impacts are represented in the second smaller pie chart. Approximately one third (34% of 53 responses) indicated no impact of research, predominantly because of lack of research experiences or occasionally because students did not see a role for research in their career.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257799.g001

Stage 3 Male:

“Erm, I think, for the vast majority of people who I would be talking to in my year would have a very practical approach to the medical degree. Erm, that I think the majority of people will be expected to work in medical practice and not in research. The people I hang out with generally would be focusing towards that and maybe research would be easier to avoid, if that is not going to be part of your career.”

Some students without research experience appreciated the potential that research could have on enhancing their learning experience. Over half of responses (35 of 53 statements) described the positive effect that research had on their learning. These benefits including making subjects more relevant or enhancing their understanding or interest in a topic.

Stage 1 Female:

“Even like the tiny bits, you know some lecturers would mention, especially in the biology ones that they are doing some research. It just make it more relevant, even regardless of what we have to do in the future it makes it easier to connect what’s going on. Just so, you know if you are just given the material and it might be, I don’t know, some material and you are told to go learn it, you don’t really know why you are doing. Whereas when they talk about the research you understand why you are being taught it.”

Stage 5 Male

“I don’t know if it’s impacted learning but more impacted your interests. So say like if you did a research project in a certain area, like, depending on whether you like the project or not, you may have an increased interest in that area. So it might propel you to study that topic a bit more or look into it in a bit more detail. But I don’t think it impacts your learning overall.”

Medical students were aware of the potential impact research experiences would have on their career progression, such as enhancement of their curriculum vitae or an achievement of fulfilling an expectation. The impact on career progression was almost exclusively reported by Stage 5 students.

Stage 5 Female

“That being said, I think I got a better appreciation for the fact that people within medicine are very well respected if they are researchers, in a lot of ways. So like, they might be clinicians by day but then, you know, researchers by night, but they’ll have publications and the more publications the more prestigious or like there is kind of, there is a respect for researchers in medicine and I think I noticed that a lot more when I was involved in the SSRA.”

Emerging themes: Opportunity and timing of research

Two specific thematic areas emerged following coding of the focus group transcripts–‘opportunity for research’ and ‘timing of research’. Students reported a lack of opportunity to undertake research, particularly in early Stages 1 and 2. More importantly, students described how a lack of research experience hindered the opportunity to undertake research projects (Fig 2). This was a recurring theme throughout all stages of the programme.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 2. Coded responses referring to research opportunity discussed during the focus groups are represented as a bar chart showing the number of responses or references to opportunity across all 5 stages.

In total, 56 responses or references to research opportunity were discussed during the focus groups. Lack of experiences being a barrier to research was discussed by students in all 5 stages. Early stage students described a lack of opportunity for research, whereas later stage students were more aware of a variety of research opportunities, however considered there was an inequality of opportunity to undertake research.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257799.g002

Stage 1 Female:

“I would add that, if applying to the SSRA because a lot of them are so specialised, you do need to have very specific skills if you want to do the research properly, so I definitely feel that is a barrier because I don’t have my research skills at this point and I feel there are very little opportunities to gain them”

Late-stage students reported that research experiences were available, however they felt that there was an inequality of access to research opportunities, particularly if students were not available in the summer to complete an SSRA (Fig 2).

Stage 4 Female

“[…] the SSRA projects it’s a great initiative and it has tons of projects for people to do but its I think the engagement is probably low. The only way I wanted to do research last summer is if I got paid for it and I ended up getting some money and so I was just very lucky that everything fell together and while I did have a great experience and I am doing research again this summer I think it was just everything falling in to place–the opportunities are sometimes hard to find.”

Despite not being specifically addressed in the focus group schedule, the timing of research experiences was discussed extensively by medical students throughout the focus group session. A substantial cohort of Stage 1 students suggested that research opportunities should be available early in the course (Fig 3), however this was tempered by a consideration that lack of experience hinders their opportunity to be competitive for research projects available (Fig 3) and consequently research opportunities were more likely to occur later in their course.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 3. Bar chart showing the number of coded responses discussed during the focus group that were associated with the timing of research experiences.

Each of the five stages of undergraduate medicine is represented individually, to facilitate an understanding of when research experiences are considered most appropriate. Students largely believed that research opportunities should be available early in the curriculum, although some later-stage students perceived that their enhanced understanding of curricular content would mean later research experiences would be more relevant.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257799.g003

Stage 1: Female

‘At this stage I don’t want a research role as that would be a lot of responsibility but any sort of lab work would be helpful in the future because really I have no experience and I am sure everyone would agree that we have no experience in lab work and I am sure that would help us in further years in applying and getting these opportunities. And also I had work experience in a clinic where they were doing clinical trials and were doing research and I can definitely see how that would transfer into our professional careers in the future. So, it is important to start as early as possible”

The remainder of early-stage medical students had limited interest in early research opportunities, however the majority were acutely aware that research would be necessary later in the course.

Stage 1 Male

“I think there are very little incentives to get involved in the early stages. So, pre-med (stage 1) students wouldn’t be particularly interested in getting involved in various different types of research but I think as the years go on, it is not just an expectation, it is a necessity for us to get involved in terms of where we want to go after we graduate.”

A substantial cohort of late-stage students also suggested that early opportunities for research projects would be beneficial, particularly from availability of time perspective. Elective modules are available in the earlier years, giving students the opportunity to potentially incorporate research into their curriculum. Late-stage students also acknowledged that their advanced clinical knowledge made later-stage research experiences more relevant.

Stage 4: Female

“I think as well you need to look at the curriculum in medicine. I mean at the end of pre- med and with no discredit to the course you haven’t actually learned a lot about medicine and in first med you are just getting to grips with the topics and then you do pharmacology and you are getting a broader understanding of medicine so then maybe that enables you or you feel more equipped to carry out a project but then you are like…oh actually I have learned about this and you can relate to it better because often times as I have said before the topics for SSRA or other research projects were quite complex, and maybe you are like ….oh I understood that word but I don’t necessarily know what that means but later you are like oh I remember that from that lecture or we learned about that here”

Recommendations for improvements.

There was an overwhelming assertion that it is valuable to include experiences of research and/or learning about research skills in the undergraduate medical programme, however students asserted that there were insufficient research opportunities currently available. The students were subsequently asked for recommendations to rectify this situation (Table 2).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Recommendations for improving research-teaching linkages.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257799.t002

However almost half of the 110 responses to this question in the focus group recommended that research be embedded within the curriculum, either as a core component or as an elective module, and particularly around Stage 2.

Stage 4: Female

“I think it would be better if it was included and didn’t involve giving up 2 months of your summer, ‘cos there are loads of people who feel they have to earn money or want to travel and I think if we were able to do even 3 weeks then we have time to do other stuff as well instead of taking up the whole summer and being in UCD for another 2 months.”

Stage 1 Female

“[…]we kinda have just done science this year and so we wouldn’t be able to contribute to research. So then we have a disinterest, but maybe if the opportunity was presented to us to even observe research being done. Just because it will benefit us in the future, then if we can have that exposure we might realise how interested we are in the research. You know, it could follow from there, like even if we had a research elective or module where you go and watch others do research and if it was built in.”

Stage 3 Male

“[…] I see how important research is but I feel like, for most hospital jobs, you need to have done research at some stage. It would be great to have an introduction to it in college. If we were going to do research at some stage it would be good to get some introduction to research.”

Stage 5: Female

“In my mind it’s obviously a question of how much UCD is prioritising research for medical graduates to take part in. Because obviously it is very important to be involved in research for evidence-based medicine but, our only exposure to it is really through anecdotal stuff in lectures and through the SSRA and that’s like another elective five credit module. Whereas if there was say, a five or ten credit module, that was mandatory that focused on research, then we might have more of an incentive to try and get ourselves involved in research and then it would also be a UCD statement saying that we think that research is very, very important and so important that its worth mandatory credits.”

Approximately 10% of the 110 responses requested an improvement to the SSRA programme, namely a more structured approach, more variety of projects and more information. Students also described how early exposure to researchers, peers, clinical role models was inspirational. This was linked to a request for improved research information, more research opportunity in general and specifically more information about the importance of research to a career in medicine.

Stage 4: Female

“…we are seeing in the journal clubs here and the grand rounds these people that we could be in their position and they think research is really important, so if we had role models–I don’t know if you know Prof H? She gave the key note address at the student medical summit last year, just talking about how to integrate research into a clinical career. I think everyone came out of that thinking like, oh wow yeah that’s really cool and these are the steps she took and that’s something I could definitely do if I had to go down one route or another. It’s something to do with having role models.”

Focus group schedule.

1. Are you aware that research is conducted in UCD?
   1. Tell me a little about that.
   2. How did that awareness develop?
2. What is your understanding of what it means to do research in Medicine?
   1. Tell me a little about that.
   2. How did that understanding develop?
3. Are you aware of staff in Medicine conducting research?
   1. Tell me a little about that.
   2. How did that awareness develop?
   3. Can you talk about what you know of their research?
   4. Can you explain how that knowledge developed?
4. Can you identify any instances where you have learned about research, been taught about research, or had any research experiences, during your studies?
   1. Can you outline any specific examples?
   2. What worked well and what did not work so well? Why was that?
   3. Would you consider that you had research experiences other than the SSRA, and if so, how well did they work?
5. I’d like you now to talk now about the ways in which your awareness and experiences of research impacted on your learning.
   1. Did that change over the course of your degree? (Stage 2 onwards)
   2. When did that change /those changes happen?
   3. Why did that change /those changes happen?
6. Do you think that it is valuable to include experiences of research, and/or learning about research skills, in undergraduate programmes?
   1. In what way?
   2. Do you think that your programme has provided adequate experience of, and training in, research skills? Explain.
7. We have come to the end now of the focus group. Before we finish up, is there anything that you would like to add?

Proposal for enhancement—Considerations for optimising the impact of research experiences for medical students

The recommendations of the students and important dimensions were encompassed into an emerging framework (Fig 4), which was used as a basis for suggesting enhancement to research programmes. In this study, students overwhelmingly recommended early research opportunities embedded within the course, ideally in the form of structured research electives delivered longitudinally through the course, with clear programme overview and delivered at appropriate times during the course. This would facilitate all students potentially having equal access to basic research or scholarly experiences, with the opportunity to create a significant portfolio of sequential experiences, each building on previous skills and knowledge. Students suggest that research experiences should be recorded and verified to provide a useful mechanism to substantiate students’ appropriateness for future research opportunities, suggesting a passport style portfolio may be useful. Furthermore students require valuable research techniques to enhance their CV, meaning, where possible, students should have the opportunity to complete a module on relevant research skills.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 4.

The conceptualisation of an emerging framework places the student at the central character, identifies issues important to students (inner circle), and defines their perceived positive impacts in terms of their educational experience and future professional career (outer circle). This framework places the student at the central character, identifies issues important to students, and defines their perceived positive impacts in terms of their educational experience and future professional career.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257799.g004

Students consistently described how naïve and inexperienced they perceive themselves to be, lacking even a basic understanding of research. Hence, an early module in the fundamentals of research, available to a large cohort of medical students, is likely to be useful in terms of enhancing student basic knowledge and experience in research. This module could include input from senior clinical scientists, acting as role models to facilitate an early understanding of the benefits of research to the medical student. Fundamental skills such as hypothesis generation, critical analysis of published articles, how to find appropriate resources to support our discussion of data or even the ability to ask pertinent questions should be incorporated into early research modules.

Subsequent modules would ideally build on this fundamental research module, potentially incorporating small research projects, exploring more detailed research topics including for example qualitative and quantitative data analysis. Given the number of students who perceive medical research to be about ‘working in a lab’, coupled with the fact that this prospect does not appeal to all students, suggests that increasing the variety of projects offered to students may be crucial to improving the student uptake. Green et al., published a compendium of examples of scholarly concentration programmes, including detailed concentration areas. Whilst biomedical sciences make up the large proportion of research projects, there are examples of some very creative non-medical projects, such as creating art programmes for patients [12].

The constraints of fulfilling academic requirements from professional bodies may provide barriers for large-scale longitudinal research experiences in the absence of significant re-structuring of existing timetables. However a number of medical schools, particularly in the U.S., have successfully incorporated longitudinal research programmes across the duration of the course culminating in the production of a dissertation. The positive impact of such programmes have been successfully evaluated [8, 12–14].

It is well-documented that the impact of students tangibly carrying out research projects is likely to be the most transformative [11], suggesting that any implementation of recommendations should, where possible, include a capstone project. This capstone project could potentially include, projects of limited duration (6–12 weeks), or more substantial such as an intercalated masters or PhD, or an M.D or clinical internship following graduation. An early opportunity to complete medicine-specific research elective modules is likely to have a significant impact on the undergraduate research journey and potentially encourage an increase in clinical scientist roles.

Limitations of the study and future research

The use of focus groups in Healthcare and Medical education has increased exponentially over the past few decades, mostly due to the ability to gain understanding not simply what people think, but importantly why they think that way. However it is still clear that more stringent guidelines are required to help define appropriate sampling strategies, focus group number, homogenous versus heterogenous sampling balance, with the aim to maximise the methodological approach and ensure the approach is fit for purpose. In this study, it could be argued that the opinions and experiences of first year and final students may vary quite differently and therefore the undergraduate medical student cohort is not completely homogenous. Moving forward, it may be more appropriate to increase the number of focus groups from early and late- stage students, in order to analyse differences in opinions between these more homogenous groups of students and strengthen the quality of the data obtained.

The approach taken in this study was to avoid pre-conceptions during sampling, and these differences emerged naturally from the data, with early-stage (1–3) and later-stage (4–5) students expressing divergent opinions on some aspects of the discussion. This corresponded to exposure to the clinical environment, where the impact, usefulness and relevance of research could more easily be appreciated. It may also have coincided with the point at which students were more likely to have experience of independent research and scholarly experiences, giving them a more informed opinion of the value of research. However, it was also reassuring to see that although there were differences of opinion and awareness between early and later-stage students, there was also consistency across all students, particularly in their recommendations for enhancement of scholarly experiences. Furthermore, the experiences of all undergraduate students, regardless of stage, research or clinical experience were captured.

In summary, this data provides an insight into medical students perception, awareness and impact of research-teaching linkages and the opportunity to undertake scholarly activity and research as part of their medical education. Research opportunities vary considerably between medical schools, however, the goal of these experiences is to augment the students’ critical analysis, improve communication skills, inculcate a curiosity to inspire life-long learning, enhance the student experience and inevitably train better physicians. Ideally, this will increase the number of clinical scientists, a measure which will undoubtable have positive impacts on patient outcomes. Whilst pragmatic issues will inevitably dictate elements of scholarly programmes, this framework places the student at the central character, identifies issues important to students, and defines their perceived positive impacts in terms of their educational experience and future professional career.