Bridging the gap between research training and dissemination: evaluation of a feedback- rich medical student research presentation program

Bridging the gap between research training and dissemination: evaluation of a feedback- rich medical student research presentation program | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Bridging the gap between research training and dissemination: evaluation of a feedback- rich medical student research presentation program Matthew Darmadi, Mabel Perez-Oquendo This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9100795/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Following the transition of the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 to Pass/Fail scoring, research productivity and the ability to communicate scholarly work effectively are increasingly important for residency applicants. While medical schools have expanded access to research opportunities, structured training that prepares students for research dissemination remains limited. To address this gap, the Student Opportunities for Advancement in Research Office implemented and evaluated the Medical Student Research Presentation (MSRP) series, a feedback-rich program designed to support research communication skill development and presenter confidence among medical students. Methods The MSRP was hosted monthly from December 2024 to November 2025 to support medical students across two campuses. Student participants delivered 7-minute research presentations followed by a 3-minute question-and-answer session with reviewers, who provided feedback using a standardized rubric. Program evaluation was conducted using a 33-item post-session survey guided by the Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to summarize presenter motivations, perceived usefulness of the session, changes in confidence across presentation skills, and application of feedback to scholarly products. Results Twenty-eight medical students presented during the study period, with 17 (60.7%) completing the post-session survey. All respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the MSRP provided actionable feedback and would recommend the program to peers. The most frequently reported areas of improvement included communication (76.5%), confidence (70.6%), and responding to audience questions (70.6%). Directional confidence gains were observed across presentation skills, with first-time presenters showing the largest gains in explaining research clearly and answering audience questions, and presenters with prior presentation experience demonstrating the strongest gains in engaging the audience. Most participants reported incorporation of feedback into revised presentations (64.7%), manuscripts (41.2%), or conference presentations (35.3%). Thirteen participants (76.5%) reported applying to present their MSRP talk at other conferences. Among those who applied (n = 13), 76.9% were accepted to present. Conclusions The MSRP is a transferable research presentation program that supports medical students’ confidence, communication skills, and early scholarly dissemination. By providing structured, feedback-rich presentation practice prior to formal conferences, the MSRP addresses a gap between project execution and scholarship in the undergraduate medical education research pipeline. medical education feedback medical student research presentation skills scholarship preparation program evaluation Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Background Residency programs increasingly emphasize research experiences in admission, especially following the transition of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 to Pass/Fail scoring [ 1 ]. National surveys show that 358 of 873 U.S. residency program directors (41.0%) place higher value on research when offering interviews, especially in more competitive specialties [ 1 , 2 ]. This emphasis is reflected in the experience of medical students at the University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix, who reported that 40.0% of residency interviewers asked about overall research, including both scholarly and non-scholarly projects [ 3 ]. In response to increasing demand for research experience, many medical schools have implemented longitudinal research training across their curricula, with mandatory training in at least 30 U.S. programs [ 4 ]. Early engagement in research fosters critical thinking, analytical skills, self-directed learning, and interest in physician-investigator careers [ 4 – 7 ]. Research presentations at conferences and symposia remain among the most common indicators of medical student research productivity [ 8 ]. Despite their prevalence, medical students may exhibit low confidence and effectiveness in delivering presentations due to a variety of factors. Among the most critical factors are opportunities for guided practice and constructive feedback from expert mentors, with a lack of either being associated with decreased confidence in oral presentations [ 9 – 11 ]. Additional barriers include the fear of being judged, physical symptoms, and topic uncertainty [ 11 ]. As such, there is a need to prepare students for research presentations more effectively. Deliberate practice has been shown to improve oral presentation skills [ 12 ], even when conducted in virtual reality settings [ 13 ]. Additionally, feedback from instructors or experts that references specific performance standards is particularly effective for improving student learning and identifying strengths and weaknesses [ 14 – 16 ]. Peer feedback can further enhance the quality of student presentations [ 14 – 16 ]. Despite increasing curricular emphasis on research participation, dissemination training at the institutional level often occurs episodically at annual research days or capstone symposia. These formats typically occur late in the research process and provide limited opportunity for iterative practice or formative feedback. As a result, students may present their work publicly for the first time at regional or national conferences, where expectations for clarity, confidence, and audience engagement are high. This structure contributes to a gap between research participation and effective scholarly dissemination, particularly for students with limited prior presentation experience. In this report, we describe the implementation and evaluation of the Medical Student Research Presentation (MSRP), a centrally coordinated, research presentation series organized by the Student Opportunities for Advancement in Research (SOAR) Office to support medical students across two campuses at Baylor College of Medicine. The MSRP provides medical students with a low-stress environment to present research at any stage of development, build communication skills for conferences, and connect with and receive direct feedback from reviewers with expertise in their project topic. We aim to examine (1) student motivations for participating in the MSRP, (2) the perceived usefulness and benefits of the MSRP, (3) changes in student confidence across presentation skills, and (4) how student scholarship is shaped by MSRP feedback. This study contributes evidence on how centrally coordinated, feedback-rich presentation programs can address a gap in the undergraduate medical education research pipeline, particularly within multi-campus settings. Methods Program Aims The aims of the Medical Student Research Presentation (MSRP) series were informed by (1) national trends demonstrating increased emphasis on research in residency interviews, (2) evidence supporting the role of feedback in improving medical students’ presentation skills, and (3) local observations of increasing student demand for structured research dissemination opportunities. The primary objective of the MSRP was to create a structured platform for medical students to present early-stage or conference ready research projects, receive constructive feedback, and build confidence in research presentation skills. The program targeted competencies related to oral communication, presentation confidence, critical thinking, presentation construction, response to audience questions, scientific storytelling, and audience engagement. These competencies were aligned with Glassick’s criteria for scholarship, which emphasize effective presentation of research to appropriate audiences [17]. Program Design and Setting The MSRP was evaluated using a descriptive program evaluation conducted between December 5, 2024, and November 6, 2025, during which 11 MSRP sessions were held. Each session consisted of 2 to 3 student presenters delivering a 7-minute research presentation to a panel of reviewers, followed immediately by a 3-minute question-and-answer period. To support participation across campuses, the session was offered synchronously with on-campus rooms and a centralized Microsoft Teams link. Review panels included faculty members, residents, and content experts, simulating the format and expectations of conference or symposium presentations. This format was intended to promote active, practice-oriented learning strategies shown to enhance training effectiveness [18]. Reviewers were recruited via email invitations and provided with a standardized scoring rubric to evaluate presentation quality, along with a free-response section for narrative feedback (see Additional file 1). Written feedback from reviewers was compiled and returned to presenters following each session. Presenters and reviewers were strongly encouraged to attend sessions in person; however, a virtual attendance option was also available. Data collection A 33-item survey was developed using REDCap and guided by the Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model [19]. In addition to participant characteristics, presenters were asked to report perceptions related to session experience (reaction), changes in skills and confidence (learning), and application of feedback to subsequent scholarly activities (behavior). For motivation and skill items, presenters were allowed to select up to three response options. For confidence assessment, presenters selected up to three skills they felt least confident and up to three skills they felt most confident before and after participation. Survey links were distributed to presenters immediately following their MSRP session, with one follow-up reminder email sent five days later. Quantitative items used 5-point Likert scales, while qualitative data were collected through checkbox selections and open-ended free-text responses. Data analysis Quantitative survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to summarize presenter characteristics, perceived usefulness of the MSRP, and changes in confidence following participation. Changes in confidence were summarized using descriptive statistics examining shifts in the proportion of presenters selecting each skill as least confident or most confident before and after participation. Directional shifts in confidence were summarized separately for first-time presenters and presenters with prior presentation experience. Participant characteristics and reported incorporation of MSRP feedback were organized into tables. Qualitative free-text responses and optional text entries that appeared upon selection of “Other” within checkbox questions were manually reviewed by both investigators to identify patterns among responses. Participant Characteristics All medical students enrolled at Baylor College of Medicine were eligible to participate in the MSRP on a voluntary basis. A total of 28 medical students presented their research projects during the study period, of whom 60.7% (n=17) completed the voluntary REDCap survey after their sessions. Presenters represented multiple class years, including 41.2% (n=7) third-year medical students, 23.5% (n=4) second-year medical students, and 35.3% (n=6) first-year medical students. Of the 17 presenters who completed the survey, 64.7% (n=11) were first-time research presenters and 35.3% (n=6) had prior presentation experience (Table 1). Table 1. Characteristics of Medical Student Research Presentation (MSRP) survey respondents Characteristic MSRP Presenters (n=17) Class Year MS1 MS2 MS3 6 (35.3%) 4 (23.5%) 7 (41.2%) Campus Houston Temple 15 (88.2%) 2 (11.8%) How Project Was Identified Direct Faculty Contact Institutional Research Database Recommendation from Student/Resident/Fellow Other 7 (41.2%) 6 (35.3%) 2 (11.8%) 2 (11.8%) Project Type Clinical Research Translational Research Basic Research Health Services Research Quality Improvement / Patient Safety 11 (64.7%) 2 (11.8%) 2 (11.8%) 1 (5.9%) 1 (5.9%) First-Time Presenting Research Findings Yes No 11 (64.7%) 6 (35.3%) Results MSRP presenter motivations To examine medical students’ motivation to present at the MSRP, survey respondents were asked to identify their primary motivations for participation. All respondents (100%, n = 17) reported participating with the intention of improving their ability to present research findings clearly and effectively (Figure 1). In addition, 70.6% of student presenters (n = 12) reported seeking constructive feedback to improve their presentations and research, while 58.8% (n = 10) indicated that they participated to present their work in an academic community and to enhance their resumes/CVs through a research presentation experience (Figure 1). Perceived usefulness and benefits of the MSRP In addition to presenter motivations, we evaluated participants’ perceptions of the MSRP after their sessions. Our survey revealed that all participants agreed or strongly agreed that the MSRP provided actionable feedback to improve their research presentations and would recommend the MSRP to their peers (Figure 2A). Additionally, 88.24% of participants (n=15) agreed or strongly agreed that the MSRP helped them think about future steps in their research (Figure 2A). When asked which presentation skills they felt improved following the session, presenters most frequently identified communication (76.47%, n=13), confidence (70.59%, n=12), and responding to audience questions (70.59%, n=12) (Figure 2B). Changes in presenter confidence and perceived skill development To explore changes in presenter confidence, presenters retrospectively identified up to three presentation skills they perceived as their most confident and least confident before and after participation in the MSRP session. We examined descriptive changes in the proportion of presenters selecting each skill at each time point. Participants were stratified into first-time presenters (n = 11), defined as students presenting research findings for the first time, and presenters with prior presentation experience (n = 6). Among first-time presenters, descriptive increases were observed in the proportion of participants selecting explaining research clearly and answering audience questions among their most confident skills following participation in the session (Supplementary Figure 1A). These increases in confidence coincided with reductions in the proportion of presenters identifying these skills as among their least confident following participation (Supplementary Figure 2A). In contrast, using presentation slides effectively showed a decrease in selection as a most confident skill. Among presenters with prior presentation experience, an increase was observed in the proportion of participants selecting engaging the audience as among their most confident skills following participation in the session (Supplementary Figure 1B). This change coincided with a reduction in the proportion of presenters identifying this skill as among their least confident following participation (Supplementary Figure 2B). Incorporation of feedback and early scholarly outcomes Reported application of feedback to subsequent scholarly activities provided early indicators of behavioral change. Following participation in the MSRP, most respondents (64.7%, n = 11) reported revising their research presentations based on reviewer feedback, while others reported application of feedback to conference presentations (35.3%, n = 6) or manuscript preparation (41.2%, n = 7) (Table 2). One participant reported using feedback primarily for personal skill development. Most respondents (76.5%, n = 13) reported having applied or planning to apply to present their research at a conference. Among those who applied, 76.9% (n = 10 of 13) reported acceptance to present (Table 2). Students reported acceptance to present their work at local, regional, national, and international conferences. These findings suggest that MSRP participation was associated with early application of feedback aligned with scholarly dissemination. Table 2. Incorporation of MSRP feedback into scholarly activities. Scholarly Outcome MSRP Presenters (n=17) Incorporation of MSRP feedback into future research A revised research presentation A conference presentation A research manuscript A grant or funding application Other: “Personal improvement” 11 (64.7%) 6 (35.3%) 7 (41.2%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (5.9%) Applied or plans to apply to present at a conference Yes No 13 (76.5%) 4 (23.5%) Accepted to present at a conference Yes No n=13 10 (76.9%) 3 (23.1%) The majority of respondents who provided free-text feedback described the MSRP as a well-organized and valuable experience, noting the quality of feedback received: “ It was a great session and very organized! Great feedback ,” and “ Receiving this feedback was an amazing opportunity. ” Several participants expressed interest in additional guidance on visual communication, particularly slide design, as reflected in the comment: “ I really appreciated the opportunity to present but wish there was more advice on building a PowerPoint to discuss my research and data. ” Suggestions to improve session logistics focused on time management and session structure, including clearer separation of questions and feedback, as noted by one participant: “ Potentially extend the time for the Q&A section. ” Discussion The evaluation of the Medical Student Research Presentation (MSRP) series suggests that structured, recurring opportunities for research presentation practice can enhance medical students’ confidence and perceived skill development in scholarly communication. As expectations for research productivity continue to rise in residency applications, programs that support dissemination readiness are increasingly important for student scholarship [ 4 ]. The MSRP addresses this need by providing a supportive environment in which students can present work at any stage of development, receive constructive feedback, and develop skills required for conference participation. While different medical schools provide access for medical students to research databases to identify mentors and projects [ 20 – 22 ], as well as travel awards to support conference dissemination [ 23 – 25 ], opportunities for guided presentation practice prior to regional or national meetings are often limited. The MSRP bridges this gap between project development and external dissemination by offering feedback-rich presentation experiences earlier in the research pipeline. Exploratory analyses suggested that patterns of confidence change may vary based on prior presentation experience. First-time presenters more frequently reported increases in confidence related to explaining research clearly and answering audience questions, whereas presenters with prior presentation experience more often reported increases in confidence related to engaging the audience. Although these subgroup sizes were small and the findings are descriptive, these patterns suggest that feedback-rich presentation programs may support different aspects of research communication depending on learners’ prior experience. These findings align with existing literature demonstrating that repeated practice, expert feedback, and realistic simulation environments contribute to skill development in medical education [ 12 – 16 ]. Beyond individual skill development, the MSRP functions as a co-curricular institutional program, thereby supporting existing research requirements without increasing curricular burden. This approach allows the MSRP to provide a mechanism for practice, feedback, and application that support diverse schedules and timelines. A key innovation of the MSRP is its centralized coordination through an institutional research office, which enables sustainability, scalability, and access across campuses. Students reported applying MSRP feedback to revised abstracts, posters, oral presentations, and manuscripts, and they also reported acceptance of their MSRP talks at local, regional, national, and international conferences. Together, these findings suggest that the MSRP supports both immediate learning and early scholarly outcomes by facilitating progression from internal presentation practice to external dissemination. While the MSRP showed improvements in medical student confidence and skill acquisition in research presentation, this study has limitations to consider. The survey sample size was relatively small, limiting statistical power for some comparisons. Subgroup comparisons based on prior presentation experience were exploratory due to the small sample size. Confidence and skill development were measured through self-report rather than observed performance. Although the structure of the MSRP is easily generalizable to other settings, this study was conducted at a single institution. The hybrid delivery model also introduced technical difficulties for one participant who reported difficulty listening to the presenter on the other campus, highlighting the importance of seeking technology and audiovisual support across campuses. Future research may explore long-term effects on objective presentation performance and assess how repeated participation influences scholarly productivity over time. Despite these limitations, the MSRP addresses a gap in research training by providing a structured, developmental pathway for students to practice scientific communication within a centralized, feedback-rich, formative environment. Conclusions In an educational landscape where research productivity and dissemination skills are increasingly emphasized in undergraduate medical education and residency selection, the MSRP series offers a scalable, low-cost approach to supporting students in moving from research participation to formal dissemination. By creating recurring opportunities for presentation practice and structured feedback, the MSRP strengthens an underdeveloped step in the medical student research pipeline. Improvements in confidence across presentation skills, along with students’ reported application of reviewer feedback to scholarly materials, highlight the value of centrally coordinated presentation programs in supporting access to dissemination training and sustained student engagement in scholarship. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board for Baylor College of Medicine and Affiliated Hospitals under protocol number (H-56067) on November 13, 2024. The IRB granted a waiver of informed consent and HIPAA authorization because the study involved minimal-risk analysis of program evaluation data, including post-participation survey responses. The study was conducted in accordance with relevant institutional guidelines and applicable regulations governing human subjects research. Consent for publication Not applicable. Availability of data and materials The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Funding This research received no funding. Author Contributions Both MD and MP made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work; the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and the drafting and revision of the work. Both MD and MP have approved the submitted version and agreed to be personally accountable for their own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of the work are appropriately investigated, resolved, and documented in the literature. Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the medical student organizers who assisted with the coordination of the Medical Student Research Presentation sessions. We also thank the student presenters who actively participated in research discussion and the reviewers who generously volunteered their time to provide constructive feedback to our presenters. References Wolfson RK, Fairchild PC, Bahner I, Baxa DM, Birnbaum DR, Chaudhry SI, et al. Residency Program Directors’ Views on Research Conducted During Medical School: A National Survey. Academic Medicine. 2023 Oct;98(10):1185–95. Strausser SA, Dopke KM, Groff D, Boehmer S, Olympia RP. Importance of residency applicant factors based on specialty and demographics: a national survey of program directors. BMC Med Educ [Internet]. 2024 Mar 13 [cited 2025 July 22];24(1). Available from: https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-024-05267-8 Daus K, McEchron M. The impact of medical student research as a discussion topic during the residency interview process. BMC Med Educ [Internet]. 2021 Dec [cited 2025 July 22];21(1). Available from: https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-021-02989-x Murray H, Payandeh J, Walker M. Scoping Review: Research Training During Medical School. MedSciEduc. 2022 Nov 10;32(6):1553–61. Peacock JG, Grande JP. A flexible, preclinical, medical school curriculum increases student academic productivity and the desire to conduct future research. Biochem Molecular Bio Educ. 2015 Sept 10;43(5):384–90. Shen J, Qi H, Liu G, Li X, Fang Y. The impact of a curriculum-based research training program on medical students’ research productivity and future research interests: a longitudinal study. BMC Med Educ [Internet]. 2024 Aug 2 [cited 2025 July 22];24(1). Available from: https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-024-05841-0 Colmenares C, Bierer SB, Graham LM. Impact of a 5-Year Research-Oriented Medical School Curriculum on Medical Student Research Interest, Scholarly Output, and Career Intentions. MedSciEduc. 2013 Apr;23(S1):88–91. Chang Y, Ramnanan CJ. A Review of Literature on Medical Students and Scholarly Research: Experiences, Attitudes, and Outcomes. Academic Medicine. 2015 Aug;90(8):1162–73. Burgess A, Van Diggele C, Roberts C, Mellis C. Feedback in the clinical setting. BMC Med Educ [Internet]. 2020 Dec [cited 2025 July 22];20(S2). Available from: https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-020-02280-5 Hecimovich M, Volet S. Development of professional confidence in health education: Research evidence of the impact of guided practice into the profession. Health Education. 2011 Apr 19;111(3):177–97. Grieve R, Woodley J, Hunt SE, McKay A. Student fears of oral presentations and public speaking in higher education: a qualitative survey. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 2021 Oct 21;45(9):1281–93. Heiman HL, Uchida T, Adams C, Butter J, Cohen E, Persell SD, et al. E-learning and deliberate practice for oral case presentation skills: A randomized trial. Medical Teacher. 2012 Dec;34(12):e820–6. Boetje J, Van Ginkel S. The added benefit of an extra practice session in virtual reality on the development of presentation skills: A randomized control trial. Computer Assisted Learning. 2021 Feb;37(1):253–64. Van Ginkel S, Gulikers J, Biemans H, Mulder M. Fostering oral presentation performance: does the quality of feedback differ when provided by the teacher, peers or peers guided by tutor? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2017 Aug 18;42(6):953–66. Griffiths JM, Luhanga U, McEwen LA, Schultz K, Dalgarno N. Promoting high-quality feedback: Tool for reviewing feedback given to learners by teachers. Can Fam Physician. 2016 Jul;62(7):600-602 Williams A. Delivering Effective Student Feedback in Higher Education: An Evaluation of the Challenges and Best Practice. IJRES. 2024 May 12;10(2):473–501. Glassick CE, Huber MT, Maeroff GI, Boyer EL. Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1997. Berkhof M, Van Rijssen HJ, Schellart AJM, Anema JR, Van Der Beek AJ. Effective training strategies for teaching communication skills to physicians: An overview of systematic reviews. Patient Education and Counseling. 2011 Aug;84(2):152–62. Smidt A, Balandin S, Sigafoos J, Reed VA. The Kirkpatrick model: A useful tool for evaluating training outcomes. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability. 2009 Sept;34(3):266–74. SOAR - Student Opportunities for Advancement in Research. https://www.bcm.edu/education/school-of-medicine/m-d-program/curriculum/student-opportunities-for-advancement-in-research. Accessed 9 Feb 2026. How to Find a Faculty Research Mentor. https://medicine.yale.edu/md-program/research/mentors/. Accessed 9 Feb 2026. Finding a Project & Mentor. https://hms.harvard.edu/education-admissions/md-program/research-opportunities/scholarly-project-pathways/finding-project-mentor. Accessed 9 Feb 2026. SOAR Travel Awards. https://www.bcm.edu/education/school-of-medicine/m-d-program/curriculum/student-opportunities-for-advancement-in-research/soar-travel-awards. Accessed 9 Feb 2026. Medical Student Research Funding and Awards. https://med.psu.edu/education/academic-resources/medical-student-research/funding-awards. Accessed 9 Feb 2026. Medical Student Research Travel Awards. https://health.ucdavis.edu/mdprogram/research/travelawards.html. Accessed 9 Feb 2026. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files RubricMSRP.docx Additional Files Additional File 1 ● Format: Rubric - Medical Student Research Presentation Session.docx ● Title: Rubric for Medical Student Research Presentation Session ● Description: This structured rubric was provided to MSRP panelists for the evaluation of student research presentations. Completed rubrics were returned to presenters after each MSRP for dissemination of feedback. SupplementarymaterialMSRP.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviewers agreed at journal 18 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 12 May, 2026 Reviews received at journal 27 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 22 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 17 Apr, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 29 Mar, 2026 Editor invited by journal 18 Mar, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 17 Mar, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 17 Mar, 2026 First submitted to journal 12 Mar, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9100795","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":614647477,"identity":"bc3c6207-2c84-486a-94b9-294085168ca5","order_by":0,"name":"Matthew Darmadi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Baylor College of Medicine","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Matthew","middleName":"","lastName":"Darmadi","suffix":""},{"id":614647478,"identity":"3f8cd113-8af3-4214-885f-b9381825e05e","order_by":1,"name":"Mabel Perez-Oquendo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Baylor College of Medicine","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mabel","middleName":"","lastName":"Perez-Oquendo","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-12 06:24:17","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9100795/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9100795/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":105908545,"identity":"4fd03158-444f-41cb-96a1-b48b43314f05","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-01 10:38:09","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":99158,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePrimary motivations for presenting in the Medical Student Research Presentation (MSRP) series. Motivations were collected through a post-session REDCap survey. Percentages represent the proportion of respondents (n = 17) who selected each motivation; participants could select up to three motivation options.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9100795/v1/a818e1e1a24fc558afed3cae.png"},{"id":105907424,"identity":"c3672eef-bc7f-4c60-bfc9-d6f43fa3f150","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-01 10:31:39","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":124858,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePresenter perceptions of the usefulness and perceived skill benefits of the Medical Student Research Presentation (MSRP) session. (A) Post-session agreement with statements related to the usefulness of the MSRP session and reviewers’ feedback. (B) Presentation skills identified by participants as most improved following MSRP participation; participants could select up to three skill options.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9100795/v1/b2185719172837607a68c298.png"},{"id":106093252,"identity":"357e7fd8-b361-400d-84dc-3d9c2be096a7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-03 11:36:22","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":904977,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9100795/v1/a171bced-1300-4c47-9c82-0246397ce802.pdf"},{"id":105908548,"identity":"195980b3-ece1-43be-8403-6f45801f3a9e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-01 10:38:11","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":24772,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdditional Files\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditional File 1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e● Format: Rubric - Medical Student Research Presentation Session.docx\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e● Title: Rubric for Medical Student Research Presentation Session\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e● Description: This structured rubric was provided to MSRP panelists for the evaluation of student research presentations. Completed rubrics were returned to presenters after each MSRP for dissemination of feedback.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"RubricMSRP.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9100795/v1/60a6f8e8eca8b7f167f7f42c.docx"},{"id":105910562,"identity":"25bf523e-8b81-4075-ad11-8818b026d0d0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-01 10:49:22","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":167891,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementarymaterialMSRP.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9100795/v1/3e7dbe79a0547efc705f0c54.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Bridging the gap between research training and dissemination: evaluation of a feedback- rich medical student research presentation program","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eResidency programs increasingly emphasize research experiences in admission, especially following the transition of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 to Pass/Fail scoring [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. National surveys show that 358 of 873 U.S. residency program directors (41.0%) place higher value on research when offering interviews, especially in more competitive specialties [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. This emphasis is reflected in the experience of medical students at the University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix, who reported that 40.0% of residency interviewers asked about overall research, including both scholarly and non-scholarly projects [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. In response to increasing demand for research experience, many medical schools have implemented longitudinal research training across their curricula, with mandatory training in at least 30 U.S. programs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. Early engagement in research fosters critical thinking, analytical skills, self-directed learning, and interest in physician-investigator careers [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR5 CR6\" citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch presentations at conferences and symposia remain among the most common indicators of medical student research productivity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. Despite their prevalence, medical students may exhibit low confidence and effectiveness in delivering presentations due to a variety of factors. Among the most critical factors are opportunities for guided practice and constructive feedback from expert mentors, with a lack of either being associated with decreased confidence in oral presentations [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR10\" citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. Additional barriers include the fear of being judged, physical symptoms, and topic uncertainty [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. As such, there is a need to prepare students for research presentations more effectively. Deliberate practice has been shown to improve oral presentation skills [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e], even when conducted in virtual reality settings [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. Additionally, feedback from instructors or experts that references specific performance standards is particularly effective for improving student learning and identifying strengths and weaknesses [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR15\" citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. Peer feedback can further enhance the quality of student presentations [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR15\" citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite increasing curricular emphasis on research participation, dissemination training at the institutional level often occurs episodically at annual research days or capstone symposia. These formats typically occur late in the research process and provide limited opportunity for iterative practice or formative feedback. As a result, students may present their work publicly for the first time at regional or national conferences, where expectations for clarity, confidence, and audience engagement are high. This structure contributes to a gap between research participation and effective scholarly dissemination, particularly for students with limited prior presentation experience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this report, we describe the implementation and evaluation of the Medical Student Research Presentation (MSRP), a centrally coordinated, research presentation series organized by the Student Opportunities for Advancement in Research (SOAR) Office to support medical students across two campuses at Baylor College of Medicine. The MSRP provides medical students with a low-stress environment to present research at any stage of development, build communication skills for conferences, and connect with and receive direct feedback from reviewers with expertise in their project topic. We aim to examine (1) student motivations for participating in the MSRP, (2) the perceived usefulness and benefits of the MSRP, (3) changes in student confidence across presentation skills, and (4) how student scholarship is shaped by MSRP feedback. This study contributes evidence on how centrally coordinated, feedback-rich presentation programs can address a gap in the undergraduate medical education research pipeline, particularly within multi-campus settings.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProgram Aims\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe aims of the Medical Student Research Presentation (MSRP) series were informed by (1) national trends demonstrating increased emphasis on research in residency interviews, (2) evidence supporting the role of feedback in improving medical students\u0026rsquo; presentation skills, and (3) local observations of increasing student demand for structured research dissemination opportunities. The primary objective of the MSRP was to create a structured platform for medical students to present early-stage or conference ready research projects, receive constructive feedback, and build confidence in research presentation skills. The program targeted competencies related to oral communication, presentation confidence, critical thinking, presentation construction, response to audience questions, scientific storytelling, and audience engagement. These competencies were aligned with Glassick\u0026rsquo;s criteria for scholarship, which emphasize effective presentation of research to appropriate audiences [17].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProgram Design and Setting\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe MSRP was evaluated using a descriptive program evaluation conducted between December 5, 2024, and November 6, 2025, during which 11 MSRP sessions were held. Each session consisted of 2 to 3 student presenters delivering a 7-minute research presentation to a panel of reviewers, followed immediately by a 3-minute question-and-answer period. To support participation across campuses, the session was offered synchronously with on-campus rooms and a centralized Microsoft Teams link.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eReview panels included faculty members, residents, and content experts, simulating the format and expectations of conference or symposium presentations. This format was intended to promote active, practice-oriented learning strategies shown to enhance training effectiveness [18]. Reviewers were recruited via email invitations and provided with a standardized scoring rubric to evaluate presentation quality, along with a free-response section for narrative feedback (see Additional file 1). Written feedback from reviewers was compiled and returned to presenters following each session. Presenters and reviewers were strongly encouraged to attend sessions in person; however, a virtual attendance option was also available.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData collection\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA 33-item survey was developed using REDCap and guided by the Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model [19]. In addition to participant characteristics, presenters were asked to report perceptions related to session experience (reaction), changes in skills and confidence (learning), and application of feedback to subsequent scholarly activities (behavior). For motivation and skill items, presenters were allowed to select up to three response options. For confidence assessment, presenters selected up to three skills they felt least confident and up to three skills they felt most confident before and after participation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSurvey links were distributed to presenters immediately following their MSRP session, with one follow-up reminder email sent five days later. Quantitative items used 5-point Likert scales, while qualitative data were collected through checkbox selections and open-ended free-text responses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuantitative survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to summarize presenter characteristics, perceived usefulness of the MSRP, and changes in confidence following participation. Changes in confidence were summarized using descriptive statistics examining shifts in the proportion of presenters selecting each skill as least confident or most confident before and after participation. Directional shifts in confidence were summarized separately for first-time presenters and presenters with prior presentation experience. Participant characteristics and reported incorporation of MSRP feedback were organized into tables. Qualitative free-text responses and optional text entries that appeared upon selection of \u0026ldquo;Other\u0026rdquo; within checkbox questions were manually reviewed by both investigators to identify patterns among responses.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParticipant Characteristics\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll medical students enrolled at Baylor College of Medicine were eligible to participate in the MSRP on a voluntary basis. A total of 28 medical students presented their research projects during the study period, of whom 60.7% (n=17) completed the voluntary REDCap survey after their sessions. Presenters represented multiple class years, including 41.2% (n=7) third-year medical students, 23.5% (n=4) second-year medical students, and 35.3% (n=6) first-year medical students. Of the 17 presenters who completed the survey, 64.7% (n=11) were first-time research presenters and 35.3% (n=6) had prior presentation experience (Table 1).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1.\u003c/strong\u003e Characteristics of Medical Student Research Presentation (MSRP) survey respondents\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"608\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 62.9934%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCharacteristic\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 37.0066%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMSRP Presenters (n=17)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 62.9934%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClass Year\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; MS1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; MS2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; MS3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 37.0066%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6 (35.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4 (23.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7 (41.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 62.9934%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCampus\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Houston\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Temple\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 37.0066%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15 (88.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (11.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 62.9934%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHow Project Was Identified\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Direct Faculty Contact\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Institutional Research Database\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Recommendation from Student/Resident/Fellow\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Other\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 37.0066%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7 (41.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6 (35.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (11.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (11.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 62.9934%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProject Type\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Clinical Research\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Translational Research\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Basic Research\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Health Services Research\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Quality Improvement / Patient Safety\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 37.0066%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11 (64.7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (11.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (11.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (5.9%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (5.9%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 62.9934%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFirst-Time Presenting Research Findings\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Yes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; No\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 37.0066%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11 (64.7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6 (35.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMSRP presenter motivations\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo examine medical students\u0026rsquo; motivation to present at the MSRP, survey respondents were asked to identify their primary motivations for participation. All respondents (100%, n = 17) reported participating with the intention of improving their ability to present research findings clearly and effectively (Figure 1). In addition, 70.6% of student presenters (n = 12) reported seeking constructive feedback to improve their presentations and research, while 58.8% (n = 10) indicated that they participated to present their work in an academic community and to enhance their resumes/CVs through a research presentation experience (Figure 1).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePerceived usefulness and benefits of the MSRP\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to presenter motivations, we evaluated participants\u0026rsquo; perceptions of the MSRP after their sessions. Our survey revealed that all participants agreed or strongly agreed that the MSRP provided actionable feedback to improve their research presentations and would recommend the MSRP to their peers (Figure 2A). Additionally, 88.24% of participants (n=15) agreed or strongly agreed that the MSRP helped them think about future steps in their research (Figure 2A). When asked which presentation skills they felt improved following the session, presenters most frequently identified communication (76.47%, n=13), confidence (70.59%, n=12), and responding to audience questions (70.59%, n=12) (Figure 2B).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eChanges in presenter confidence and perceived skill development\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo explore changes in presenter confidence, presenters retrospectively identified up to three presentation skills they perceived as their most confident and least confident before and after participation in the MSRP session. We examined descriptive changes in the proportion of presenters selecting each skill at each time point. Participants were stratified into first-time presenters (n = 11), defined as students presenting research findings for the first time, and presenters with prior presentation experience (n = 6).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong first-time presenters, descriptive increases were observed in the proportion of participants selecting explaining research clearly and answering audience questions among their most confident skills following participation in the session (Supplementary Figure 1A). These increases in confidence coincided with reductions in the proportion of presenters identifying these skills as among their least confident following participation (Supplementary Figure 2A). In contrast, using presentation slides effectively showed a decrease in selection as a most confident skill.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong presenters with prior presentation experience, an increase was observed in the proportion of participants selecting engaging the audience as among their most confident skills following participation in the session (Supplementary Figure 1B). This change coincided with a reduction in the proportion of presenters identifying this skill as among their least confident following participation (Supplementary Figure 2B).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIncorporation of feedback\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eand early scholarly outcomes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eReported application of feedback to subsequent scholarly activities provided early indicators of behavioral change. Following participation in the MSRP, most respondents (64.7%, n = 11) reported revising their research presentations based on reviewer feedback, while others reported application of feedback to conference presentations (35.3%, n = 6) or manuscript preparation (41.2%, n = 7) (Table 2). One participant reported using feedback primarily for personal skill development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMost respondents (76.5%, n = 13) reported having applied or planning to apply to present their research at a conference. Among those who applied, 76.9% (n = 10 of 13) reported acceptance to present (Table 2). Students reported acceptance to present their work at local, regional, national, and international conferences. These findings suggest that MSRP participation was associated with early application of feedback aligned with scholarly dissemination.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2.\u003c/strong\u003e Incorporation of MSRP feedback into scholarly activities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"617\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57.2123%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eScholarly Outcome\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42.7877%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMSRP Presenters (n=17)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57.2123%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIncorporation of MSRP feedback into future research\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; A revised research presentation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; A conference presentation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; A research manuscript\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; A grant or funding application\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; Other: \u0026ldquo;Personal improvement\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42.7877%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11 (64.7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6 (35.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7 (41.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0 (0.0%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (5.9%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57.2123%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eApplied or plans to apply to present at a conference\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; Yes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; No\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42.7877%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13 (76.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4 (23.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57.2123%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAccepted to present at a conference\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; Yes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; No\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42.7877%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;n=13\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10 (76.9%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (23.1%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;The majority of respondents who provided free-text feedback described the MSRP as a well-organized and valuable experience, noting the quality of feedback received: \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eIt was a great session and very organized! Great feedback\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eReceiving this feedback was an amazing opportunity.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; Several participants expressed interest in additional guidance on visual communication, particularly slide design, as reflected in the comment: \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eI really appreciated the opportunity to present but wish there was more advice on building a PowerPoint to discuss my research and data.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; Suggestions to improve session logistics focused on time management and session structure, including clearer separation of questions and feedback, as noted by one participant: \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ePotentially extend the time for the Q\u0026amp;A section.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe evaluation of the Medical Student Research Presentation (MSRP) series suggests that structured, recurring opportunities for research presentation practice can enhance medical students\u0026rsquo; confidence and perceived skill development in scholarly communication. As expectations for research productivity continue to rise in residency applications, programs that support dissemination readiness are increasingly important for student scholarship [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. The MSRP addresses this need by providing a supportive environment in which students can present work at any stage of development, receive constructive feedback, and develop skills required for conference participation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile different medical schools provide access for medical students to research databases to identify mentors and projects [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR21\" citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e], as well as travel awards to support conference dissemination [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR24\" citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e], opportunities for guided presentation practice prior to regional or national meetings are often limited. The MSRP bridges this gap between project development and external dissemination by offering feedback-rich presentation experiences earlier in the research pipeline. Exploratory analyses suggested that patterns of confidence change may vary based on prior presentation experience. First-time presenters more frequently reported increases in confidence related to explaining research clearly and answering audience questions, whereas presenters with prior presentation experience more often reported increases in confidence related to engaging the audience. Although these subgroup sizes were small and the findings are descriptive, these patterns suggest that feedback-rich presentation programs may support different aspects of research communication depending on learners\u0026rsquo; prior experience. These findings align with existing literature demonstrating that repeated practice, expert feedback, and realistic simulation environments contribute to skill development in medical education [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR13 CR14 CR15\" citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeyond individual skill development, the MSRP functions as a co-curricular institutional program, thereby supporting existing research requirements without increasing curricular burden. This approach allows the MSRP to provide a mechanism for practice, feedback, and application that support diverse schedules and timelines. A key innovation of the MSRP is its centralized coordination through an institutional research office, which enables sustainability, scalability, and access across campuses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudents reported applying MSRP feedback to revised abstracts, posters, oral presentations, and manuscripts, and they also reported acceptance of their MSRP talks at local, regional, national, and international conferences. Together, these findings suggest that the MSRP supports both immediate learning and early scholarly outcomes by facilitating progression from internal presentation practice to external dissemination.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile the MSRP showed improvements in medical student confidence and skill acquisition in research presentation, this study has limitations to consider. The survey sample size was relatively small, limiting statistical power for some comparisons. Subgroup comparisons based on prior presentation experience were exploratory due to the small sample size. Confidence and skill development were measured through self-report rather than observed performance. Although the structure of the MSRP is easily generalizable to other settings, this study was conducted at a single institution. The hybrid delivery model also introduced technical difficulties for one participant who reported difficulty listening to the presenter on the other campus, highlighting the importance of seeking technology and audiovisual support across campuses. Future research may explore long-term effects on objective presentation performance and assess how repeated participation influences scholarly productivity over time. Despite these limitations, the MSRP addresses a gap in research training by providing a structured, developmental pathway for students to practice scientific communication within a centralized, feedback-rich, formative environment.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn an educational landscape where research productivity and dissemination skills are increasingly emphasized in undergraduate medical education and residency selection, the MSRP series offers a scalable, low-cost approach to supporting students in moving from research participation to formal dissemination. By creating recurring opportunities for presentation practice and structured feedback, the MSRP strengthens an underdeveloped step in the medical student research pipeline. Improvements in confidence across presentation skills, along with students\u0026rsquo; reported application of reviewer feedback to scholarly materials, highlight the value of centrally coordinated presentation programs in supporting access to dissemination training and sustained student engagement in scholarship.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was approved by the Institutional Review Board for Baylor College of Medicine and Affiliated Hospitals under protocol number (H-56067) on November 13, 2024. The IRB granted a waiver of informed consent and HIPAA authorization because the study involved minimal-risk analysis of program evaluation data, including post-participation survey responses. The study was conducted in accordance with relevant institutional guidelines and applicable regulations governing human subjects research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research received no funding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth MD and MP made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work; the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and the drafting and revision of the work. Both MD and MP have approved the submitted version and agreed to be personally accountable for their own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of the work are appropriately investigated, resolved, and documented in the literature.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors would like to acknowledge the support of the medical student organizers who assisted with the coordination of the Medical Student Research Presentation sessions. We also thank the student presenters who actively participated in research discussion and the reviewers who generously volunteered their time to provide constructive feedback to our presenters.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWolfson RK, Fairchild PC, Bahner I, Baxa DM, Birnbaum DR, Chaudhry SI, et al. Residency Program Directors\u0026rsquo; Views on Research Conducted During Medical School: A National Survey. Academic Medicine. 2023 Oct;98(10):1185\u0026ndash;95. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStrausser SA, Dopke KM, Groff D, Boehmer S, Olympia RP. Importance of residency applicant factors based on specialty and demographics: a national survey of program directors. BMC Med Educ [Internet]. 2024 Mar 13 [cited 2025 July 22];24(1). Available from: https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-024-05267-8\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDaus K, McEchron M. The impact of medical student research as a discussion topic during the residency interview process. BMC Med Educ [Internet]. 2021 Dec [cited 2025 July 22];21(1). Available from: https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-021-02989-x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMurray H, Payandeh J, Walker M. Scoping Review: Research Training During Medical School. MedSciEduc. 2022 Nov 10;32(6):1553\u0026ndash;61. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePeacock JG, Grande JP. A flexible, preclinical, medical school curriculum increases student academic productivity and the desire to conduct future research. Biochem Molecular Bio Educ. 2015 Sept 10;43(5):384\u0026ndash;90. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShen J, Qi H, Liu G, Li X, Fang Y. The impact of a curriculum-based research training program on medical students\u0026rsquo; research productivity and future research interests: a longitudinal study. BMC Med Educ [Internet]. 2024 Aug 2 [cited 2025 July 22];24(1). Available from: https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-024-05841-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eColmenares C, Bierer SB, Graham LM. Impact of a 5-Year Research-Oriented Medical School Curriculum on Medical Student Research Interest, Scholarly Output, and Career Intentions. MedSciEduc. 2013 Apr;23(S1):88\u0026ndash;91.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChang Y, Ramnanan CJ. A Review of Literature on Medical Students and Scholarly Research: Experiences, Attitudes, and Outcomes. Academic Medicine. 2015 Aug;90(8):1162\u0026ndash;73. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBurgess A, Van Diggele C, Roberts C, Mellis C. Feedback in the clinical setting. BMC Med Educ [Internet]. 2020 Dec [cited 2025 July 22];20(S2). Available from: https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-020-02280-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHecimovich M, Volet S. Development of professional confidence in health education: Research evidence of the impact of guided practice into the profession. Health Education. 2011 Apr 19;111(3):177\u0026ndash;97. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrieve R, Woodley J, Hunt SE, McKay A. Student fears of oral presentations and public speaking in higher education: a qualitative survey. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 2021 Oct 21;45(9):1281\u0026ndash;93. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHeiman HL, Uchida T, Adams C, Butter J, Cohen E, Persell SD, et al. E-learning and deliberate practice for oral case presentation skills: A randomized trial. Medical Teacher. 2012 Dec;34(12):e820\u0026ndash;6. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoetje J, Van Ginkel S. The added benefit of an extra practice session in virtual reality on the development of presentation skills: A randomized control trial. Computer Assisted Learning. 2021 Feb;37(1):253\u0026ndash;64. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Ginkel S, Gulikers J, Biemans H, Mulder M. Fostering oral presentation performance: does the quality of feedback differ when provided by the teacher, peers or peers guided by tutor? Assessment \u0026amp; Evaluation in Higher Education. 2017 Aug 18;42(6):953\u0026ndash;66. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGriffiths JM, Luhanga U, McEwen LA, Schultz K, Dalgarno N. Promoting high-quality feedback: Tool for reviewing feedback given to learners by teachers. Can Fam Physician. 2016 Jul;62(7):600-602\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilliams A. Delivering Effective Student Feedback in Higher Education: An Evaluation of the Challenges and Best Practice. IJRES. 2024 May 12;10(2):473\u0026ndash;501.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGlassick CE, Huber MT, Maeroff GI, Boyer EL. Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1997.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBerkhof M, Van Rijssen HJ, Schellart AJM, Anema JR, Van Der Beek AJ. Effective training strategies for teaching communication skills to physicians: An overview of systematic reviews. Patient Education and Counseling. 2011 Aug;84(2):152\u0026ndash;62. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmidt A, Balandin S, Sigafoos J, Reed VA. The Kirkpatrick model: A useful tool for evaluating training outcomes. Journal of Intellectual \u0026amp; Developmental Disability. 2009 Sept;34(3):266\u0026ndash;74. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSOAR - Student Opportunities for Advancement in Research. https://www.bcm.edu/education/school-of-medicine/m-d-program/curriculum/student-opportunities-for-advancement-in-research. Accessed 9 Feb 2026.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHow to Find a Faculty Research Mentor. https://medicine.yale.edu/md-program/research/mentors/. Accessed 9 Feb 2026.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFinding a Project \u0026amp; Mentor. https://hms.harvard.edu/education-admissions/md-program/research-opportunities/scholarly-project-pathways/finding-project-mentor. Accessed 9 Feb 2026. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSOAR Travel Awards. https://www.bcm.edu/education/school-of-medicine/m-d-program/curriculum/student-opportunities-for-advancement-in-research/soar-travel-awards. Accessed 9 Feb 2026.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMedical Student Research Funding and Awards. https://med.psu.edu/education/academic-resources/medical-student-research/funding-awards. Accessed 9 Feb 2026.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMedical Student Research Travel Awards. https://health.ucdavis.edu/mdprogram/research/travelawards.html. Accessed 9 Feb 2026. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-medical-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"meed","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Medical Education](http://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/meed/default.aspx","title":"BMC Medical Education","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"medical education, feedback, medical student research, presentation skills, scholarship preparation, program evaluation","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9100795/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9100795/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBackground\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFollowing the transition of the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 to Pass/Fail scoring, research productivity and the ability to communicate scholarly work effectively are increasingly important for residency applicants. While medical schools have expanded access to research opportunities, structured training that prepares students for research dissemination remains limited. To address this gap, the Student Opportunities for Advancement in Research Office implemented and evaluated the Medical Student Research Presentation (MSRP) series, a feedback-rich program designed to support research communication skill development and presenter confidence among medical students.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe MSRP was hosted monthly from December 2024 to November 2025 to support medical students across two campuses. Student participants delivered 7-minute research presentations followed by a 3-minute question-and-answer session with reviewers, who provided feedback using a standardized rubric. Program evaluation was conducted using a 33-item post-session survey guided by the Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to summarize presenter motivations, perceived usefulness of the session, changes in confidence across presentation skills, and application of feedback to scholarly products.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTwenty-eight medical students presented during the study period, with 17 (60.7%) completing the post-session survey. All respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the MSRP provided actionable feedback and would recommend the program to peers. The most frequently reported areas of improvement included communication (76.5%), confidence (70.6%), and responding to audience questions (70.6%). Directional confidence gains were observed across presentation skills, with first-time presenters showing the largest gains in explaining research clearly and answering audience questions, and presenters with prior presentation experience demonstrating the strongest gains in engaging the audience. Most participants reported incorporation of feedback into revised presentations (64.7%), manuscripts (41.2%), or conference presentations (35.3%). Thirteen participants (76.5%) reported applying to present their MSRP talk at other conferences. Among those who applied (n = 13), 76.9% were accepted to present.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe MSRP is a transferable research presentation program that supports medical students’ confidence, communication skills, and early scholarly dissemination. By providing structured, feedback-rich presentation practice prior to formal conferences, the MSRP addresses a gap between project execution and scholarship in the undergraduate medical education research pipeline.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Bridging the gap between research training and dissemination: evaluation of a feedback- rich medical student research presentation program","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-01 10:11:55","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9100795/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"133342395399189790133409758718614364114","date":"2026-05-18T14:58:50+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"332874965746576049824094418488253902899","date":"2026-05-12T23:03:39+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-27T19:52:12+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"153937904851917461419558840188814448820","date":"2026-04-22T14:33:20+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"64284901975886517179962623882739804531","date":"2026-04-17T04:02:12+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-03-29T21:50:16+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2026-03-18T13:45:48+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-03-17T08:15:45+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-03-17T08:15:05+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Medical Education","date":"2026-03-12T06:18:11+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-medical-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"meed","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Medical Education](http://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/meed/default.aspx","title":"BMC Medical Education","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"f4dee6dd-11d6-4079-9bfe-95f853c16a37","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 1st, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"133342395399189790133409758718614364114","date":"2026-05-18T14:58:50+00:00","index":127,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"332874965746576049824094418488253902899","date":"2026-05-12T23:03:39+00:00","index":123,"fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-01T10:11:55+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-01 10:11:55","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9100795","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9100795","identity":"rs-9100795","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}