Introduction: The analysis of research productivity in neurosurgery has gained significant recent interest. Resident scholarly output has significant effects on departmental output, recruitment of residents, and future clinical/research careers. However, the factors that impact resident research interest on a national level remain unclear.
Methods: All U.S. neurosurgical residents were surveyed in 2017 evaluating limiting factors for pursuing research. Residents with higher number of publications than the cohort median were studied.
Results: Surveys were returned from 278 residents (20% response) in 82 residency programs and 30 states. Residents desired academic positions (54.2%), followed by private practice with some research (40.3%), private practice alone (5.4%), and other (1.1%). A mean±SD of 11±14 publications was seen and correlated with residency year. The most common type of research involved retrospective cohort studies (24%) followed by lab/benchtop (19%), and case reports (18%). Residents spent on average 14.1±18.5 hours a week on research with most residents having =12 (54.6%), or 1 (19.8%) month of protected research. The most common available departmental resources included protected research time (70.5%), access to medical students and/or undergraduates (64.4%), and internal funding (45.3%). Residents with higher numbers of publications cited mentorship (p=0.01), research exposure (p=0.001), neurosurgery conference exposure (p=0.04), formal education prior to residency (p=0.01), and internal funding sources (p=0.05) as most important for them. These residents showed a significantly higher number grants of $1,000-9,999 (p=0.0001, p=0.0001) or >$10,000 (p=0.002, p=0.05), (applied and received respectively). The three most limiting factors for pursuing research among all residents were time (91.0%), call scheduling (47.1%), and funding/grants (37.1%). About half of residents (49.6%) were encouraged with continued neurosurgical research, while the rest were neutral (36.0%) or discouraged (13.7%).
Conclusions: This study evaluates, for the first time, factors impacting resident views towards research, limitations in research endeavors, and discusses strategies to improve research opportunities.
Patient Care: Innovation is critical to the improvement of neurosurgical care for patients. In addition, training in evidenced-base medicine and critical appraisal of scientific literature are lifelong skills that can allow residents to apply new knowledge towards patient treatment. Understanding and improving access to resident research strives to improve innovation and critical thinking in neurosurgical trainees, which can directly improve patient care.
Learning Objectives: By the conclusion of this session, participants should be able to: 1) Describe challenges in resident exposure to research during training, 2) Discuss several potential strategies for improving resident access to research opportunities