Fostering Research Engagement and Ideation: Insights from Medical Students in Thailand

Fostering Research Engagement and Ideation: Insights from Medical Students in Thailand | 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 Fostering Research Engagement and Ideation: Insights from Medical Students in Thailand Settanan Plangsiri, Manisara Jirapornsuwan, Phanuwich Kaewkamjornchai This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5784741/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Research plays a crucial role in fostering critical thinking skills in students, which greatly contributes to their future careers. In addition, many life-saving drugs have been developed from discoveries made through medical student research. However, students often struggle to find captivating research topics and suitable advisors. This study aims to facilitate medical student engagement in research by identifying how experienced researchers generate ideas and connect with research advisors. Methods A sequential mixed-methods approach was employed, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative surveys. The study focused on the 2023 cohort of third-year medical students, who were required to complete a research proposal as part of their graduation requirements. Quantitative data were analyzed using t-tests and Chi-square tests to assess associations. Additionally, structured interviews were conducted to provide deeper qualitative insights. Results The most important factor in initiating research ideas was discussing with faculty staff specializing in the area of interest (91.5%), followed by self-literature review (53.2%), and attending research seminars (46.8%). For successive research projects, attending research seminars became less important (21.9%). Research advisors were primarily found through research seminars (38.1%) and by directly asking class lecturers (20.3%). First research advisors were often class professors (23.4%), while successive research advisors were obtained through other professors' recommendations (28.1%). The interview delved deeper into each participant’s motivations for pursuing research, uncovering their perspectives on how effectively the curriculum facilitated professor matching and their personal experiences with research advisors. Additionally, while many participants expressed a personal interest in research, the majority opposed the idea of making research a mandatory requirement in medical school. Conclusion Discussion with faculty staff, personal literature review, and research seminars are crucial in sparking research ideas among medical students. However, research seminars become less relevant for generating ideas after students complete their first research project. Research seminars still play a significant role in helping students find research advisors. Medical schools aiming to promote research among students should support these activities. Medical Education Undergraduate Medical Education Research Curriculum Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Background In recent years, there has been a growing trend of medical students engaging in research [ 1 – 4 ]. Countries with medical education systems similar to Thailand's undergraduate-level programs, such as the Netherlands, Iran, the UK, and Pakistan, have reported a significant increase in high-quality research publications [ 2 , 4 ]. Similarly, countries requiring an undergraduate degree before medical school enrollment, such as the United States and Canada, have also demonstrated notable research output from medical students [ 4 ]. However, in countries like Peru and Nigeria, research productivity remains inconsistent across institutions. Additionally, other regions, including Morocco, Arab nations (Egypt, Algeria, Sudan, Jordan, Syria, and Palestine), and GCC countries (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates), face challenges in fostering student participation in research. These countries need to place greater emphasis on encouraging research activities and equipping students with the necessary skills and knowledge to conduct research effectively [ 5 – 10 ]. Students who have completed their first research project are more likely to pursue further research [ 11 ], exhibit increased interest in academia [ 12 ], and consider pursuing residency [ 2 , 13 ]. Moreover, students who perceive themselves as having more research skills or experience like graduate students are more inclined to engage in research [ 14 ]. However, some existing studies have demonstrated that despite having a positive outlook on the importance of research, only a limited number of students initiate research projects voluntarily [ 15 ]. Obstacles preventing students from engaging in research include a lack of knowledge [ 16 ], limited free time, and inadequate guidance [ 17 ]. The Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital is one such medical school in Thailand, the middle-income country in south-east Asia, that incorporates research education into compulsory undergraduate medical curriculum. In addition to introducing research methods, the institution organizes a variety of research-focused seminars to promote research opportunities for the students, such as the Research Market, Research Camp, Research Tour, Dean’s PARTIEs (Pursuing Academic Research Towards International Excellence) and Science Fair. The Research Market and Research Camp were designed to enable professors to host their own research booths and conduct small seminars at scheduled times, providing opportunities for students to listen, engage in discussions, and establish connections with potential advisors. The Research Tour offers students a guided visit to various professors’ laboratories, where they can observe ongoing projects and gain insights into the professors’ research. Dean’s Parties serve as exclusive events where distinguished professors and senior medical students, including recipients of the Prince Mahidol Award Youth Program scholarship, share their experiences and deliver talks to junior students, fostering inspiration and mentorship. Lastly, the Science Fair showcases senior medical students’ research posters, allowing new students to explore and learn from their peers’ work. By participating in these institution-hosted seminars, students have the opportunity to engage with faculty members conducting research across diverse fields, gaining valuable exposure to various research areas and methodologies. Moreover, the institution supports medical students through initiatives like the ‘Tonkla Ramathibodi’ Research Funding Program, which offers limited funding for research projects. The program also maintains a dedicated website that lists professors along with their areas of expertise and contact information. Additionally, the Tonkla Ramathibodi program includes back-office staff who assist students by answering questions, providing guidance, and helping to match students with suitable advisors based on their research interests or proposed topics. Students can easily access this support by emailing the program with their specific interests. In the context of the Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, although all students receive the same curriculum, only a portion of them can independently conceive research topics and initiate research projects faster than their peers. Moreover, it remains unclear whether the various research-supporting activities organized by the institution effectively facilitate research question formulation among students. Consequently, the investigators aim to assess the origin of research topics initiated by Ramathibodi medical students to analyze and identify factors contributing to successful research project initiation. The findings of this study could inform curriculum development, activities, and learning environments that support research project initiation for relevant stakeholders. Methods The study utilized a mix-sequential survey including quantitative and qualitative research design to identify and evaluate the most prevalent methods students used to generate research ideas they were interested in pursuing. Quantitative study To analyze and identify the factors that influence the initiation of research projects among medical students. A questionnaire-based quantitative design was administered, focusing on the process of research idea initiation and the approaches students employed to find potential research advisors. Study design and population The study population comprises of third-year medical students from the Faculty of Medicine at Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University. Data regarding students' research experiences were collected through an online survey. A convenience sampling approach was employed to gather survey responses. The sample size encompassed more than half of the entire cohort of third-year medical students (n=139). Data collection took place in January 2023. Survey Development and Validation The survey was constructed based on findings from a comprehensive literature review on factors influencing research engagement among medical students [18-20]. Following this, the investigators consulted three experts in research and medical education to refine the survey items for clarity, relevance, and comprehensiveness. The draft survey was then pilot-tested with 10 third-year medical students to ensure clarity and precision of the questions. Feedback from these students was used to make final adjustments before the survey was distributed to the full cohort. Data The collected data included: (1) personal information such as name, student number, gender, and GPA, and (2) research-focused questionnaire responses encompassing the type of research, current student progress, the process through which students developed their research ideas, and the most significant events that assisted students in identifying advisors for their projects. The steps for collecting and analyzing quantitative data are as follows: Data collection to identify factors influencing research topic initiation, including: i. Gender ii. Cumulative Grade Point Average (GPA) iii. Number and types of research projects previously participated in during research topic initiation iv. Importance levels of various factors contributing to the initiation of each research topic v. Importance levels of various factors contributing to finding a research advisor vi. Other factors contributing to the initiation of each research topic and the importance levels of these factors Data analysis, consisting of: i. Descriptive analysis to summarize the data ii. Statistical tests, including the t-test and chi-square test, to examine the relationships between the data Statistical analysis In this study, the statistical analysis incorporated two primary components. First, a descriptive analysis was conducted to summarize the data, offering insights into the general trends and central tendencies within the dataset, such as the most popular or prevalent methods students employed to generate their project ideas. Second, statistical tests, including the t-test and chi-square test, were applied to examine the relationships between the data. These tests facilitated a rigorous evaluation of the associations between variables, such as GPA and the number of research projects, as well as the potential influence of gender on research involvement. By integrating both descriptive and inferential statistical techniques, this study provided a comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing research idea initiation and advisor selection among medical students. Qualitative study A structured interview was conducted to explore and uncover the underlying themes in greater depth. Participants from the qualitative study cohort were selected using a combination of purposive recruitment and snowball sampling methods. Interviews continued until thematic saturation was achieved, with a total of 19 participants included. All interview sessions were recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis was conducted through independent coding by two investigators, with any conflicts resolved by a third investigator. The interviews were conducted in Thai. The interview questions included the following: 1. What motivated you to start or become interested in your project(s)? Please explain. 2. What are your opinions on the strengths and weaknesses of the Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, in supporting research? Are there specific areas where improvements could help future medical students find their passion and inspiration for research? 3. How were you matched with your advisor for your project(s)? Please elaborate. 4. What should the Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, improve to help students find and connect with suitable professors? 5. How would you describe an ideal research advisor? 6. Do you agree with the current requirement for all medical students at the Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, to participate in research? 7. If research were not mandatory, would you still choose to engage in it? These questions were designed to delve deeper into areas that could not be fully addressed through quantitative methods, particularly focusing on research ideation and advisor matching. Additional questions about the research-oriented curriculum at the Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, were also included. The original Thai version of the questionnaire is provided in Supplementary File 1. Results Quantitative Data Out of the 139 students surveyed, 67.63% had participated in initiating at least one research topic. Chi-square tests showed no statistical significance between gender – female or male and research initiation, with a p-value of 0.757 and a chi-square value of 0.096, which is below the critical value of 3.84, see Figure 1. On the other hand, independent two-tailed t-tests demonstrated a statistically significant relationship between students with a GPA higher than 3.5 and the initiation of more research projects, with a p-value of 0.04012, see Figure 2. The majority of students participated in basic science research (37.2%), followed by clinical research (35.6%) and medical education research (10.8%), see Figure 3. The most influential factors for initiating their first research project were discussions with faculty members specializing in their area of interest (67.0%), attending institution-hosted research seminars (39.4%), and conducting self-directed literature reviews (34.0%), see Figure 4. In contrast, interactions with peers, such as juniors and seniors, as well as insights from class lectures, were deemed less significant, Figure 5. These trends largely carried over to students' subsequent research endeavors, with discussions with specialized faculty (71.9%) and self-literature reviews (56.3%) remaining pivotal, while the importance of attending research seminars declined notably (21.9%). Students primarily identified their research advisors through institutional research seminars (40.4%) and by directly approaching their class lecturers (23.4%). For subsequent projects, however, recommendations from other professors became an important method for selecting advisors (28.1%). Interestingly, the reliance on research seminars for finding advisors decreased significantly in later projects (40.4% for initial advisors vs. 21.9% for subsequent advisors), see Figure 6. Qualitative Data The result of the interview can be broadly categorized into three main themes: research ideation, advisor matching, and opinions on the curriculum. All participants reported involvement in at least one research project. Research ideation The first theme identified through the interviews centered on personal motivation for research and the ideation process for research projects. As anticipated, these aspects varied significantly among participants. Notably, more than half of the participants highlighted the Tonkla Ramathibodi website or institution-hosted research seminars as valuable resources for generating ideas for their research projects. Theme Summary Personal Motivations Behind Initiating Each Research Research being a mandatory component of the curriculum A desire to explore and answer questions sparked by classroom discussions or personal experiences Encouragement or invitations from peers or professors to join research projects Viewing research as a valuable step to support future career goals in medicine An interest in exploring potential research opportunities within a personally preferred field or specialty A strong intrinsic motivation, with some interviewees expressing a desire to pursue research simply for the sake of doing it Ideation and Initiation of Project The project idea did not originate from the interviewee but was suggested by external sources such as professors, mentors, or friends. Some interviewees had a specific interest, such as a disease or medical specialty, and sought further inspiration by browsing the Tonkla Ramathibodi website or consulting with professors. The idea emerged as a question sparked by classroom lectures or academic exposure. Research seminars organized by the institution provided a platform to explore potential project ideas. Ideas were also developed through external events, such as hackathons or other activities not specifically designed for student research exploration. Participants adapted concepts from extracurricular activities they were already involved in and transformed them into research projects. Advisor matching The responses regarding how participants connected with their advisors revealed a variety of sources. In many cases, when the research project was initiated by a friend of the participant rather than the participant themselves, an advisor was already in place. Interestingly, many participants mentioned resources such as the Tonkla Ramathibodi website, email communication with its staff, and research seminars hosted by the institution as key channels for discovering and connecting with professors. When discussing the qualities of an ideal advisor, the responses highlighted varying expectations. While some participants preferred advisors who provided a detailed, step-by-step plan for the project, others favored a degree of independence in conducting their research. This balance of freedom and guidance ultimately depends on clear communication between the student and the advisor to align mutual expectations and ensure a productive working relationship. Theme Summary Matching with Advisors The participant consulted the professor overseeing the research subject to identify a suitable advisor. The project advisor was a faculty lecturer. Recommendations were received from other professors. A friend provided a recommendation for the advisor. The mentor professor assigned by the institution became the research advisor. The professor's contact email was found through the Tonkla Ramathibodi website. Initial contact was made with the professor during institution-hosted research seminars. An email was sent to Tonkla Ramathibodi's general contact, and the staff responded with a professor recommendation. The participant was invited to collaborate again by their previous research project advisor. Qualities of an Ideal Advisor Expertise in the Field: An ideal advisor should possess deep expertise in the field they are advising, ensuring they can provide valuable insights and guidance. Supportive Environment: They should foster a casual and friendly yet professional environment, making students feel comfortable asking questions without fear of judgment, pressure, or stress. Inspiration and Leadership: An ideal advisor should be passionate about their work, inspiring students while providing guidance and teaching. They should strike a balance between support and independence—offering help without taking over the project. Effective delegation of tasks is crucial. Resourceful Guidance: Advisors should provide students with resources and additional materials to help them deepen their understanding of the research topic, rather than simply directing them to “look it up online.” Clear and Effective Communication: An ideal advisor should communicate clearly and promptly, especially regarding project expectations and responsibilities. Utilizing fast communication channels, like messaging apps, can greatly enhance the advising experience. Self-Awareness and Time Management: Advisors should recognize their own limitations, such as their response time and workload capacity. It’s a bonus if they can personally oversee the student’s progress. Empathy and Understanding: They should empathize with students, acknowledging that they are learners balancing academic studies, and not treating them as full-fledged research assistants. Selective Engagement: An ideal advisor should be upfront about rejecting topics they are not interested in, saving both their time and the student’s. Curriculum Awareness: Advisors should understand the timeline of the research curriculum, helping students stay on track and develop strong time management skills. Open-Mindedness: An ideal advisor should be open to new ideas and concepts, encouraging innovative thinking and creativity. Constructive Feedback: Advisors should provide honest, constructive feedback, especially when students make mistakes, fostering growth while maintaining a positive atmosphere. Personalized Support: Recognizing that each student has unique ambitions, an ideal advisor should help scope research topics to align with the student’s goals and aspirations. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Advisor Matching in the Curriculum and Identifying Areas for Improvement Institution-hosted research seminars were highly appreciated by most of the interviewed students, with a preference for onsite seminars over online ones. The contact information provided on the Tonkla Ramathibodi website was also well-received, but it should be regularly updated to ensure accuracy and reflect the actual contact details used by advisors. Beyond just contact details, the Tonkla Ramathibodi website could also include information about each professor's capacity and availability for new students. Extending the timeline for professor matching in the research curriculum would be beneficial. The current requirement for students to have a registered advisor by their second year is perceived as too rushed. Organizing workshops to teach students how to write formal emails to professors would be highly valuable. Increasing visibility and opportunities to connect with clinical advisors is strongly encouraged. New medical students should be encouraged to observe their senior peers working on research projects, providing them with early exposure and inspiration. Opinion on the curriculum Students expressed satisfaction with the approachability of professors and the ample funding provided by Tonkla Ramathibodi. The research seminars hosted by the institution were also praised, with many students highlighting their high quality. However, there is a clear preference for onsite seminars over online versions. Despite these positives, most students expressed dissatisfaction with the mandatory nature of the research project required for completing the medical degree. Several students voiced concerns about the timing of the research course, which requires them to select advisors and topics during their pre-clinical years. This structure often leads to a mismatch during their clinical years when their interests may shift to different fields or specialties, but they are bound to continue working on the projects chosen earlier. Opinions on the research course itself were mixed. Some students reported that the course was helpful in supporting their research projects, while others found it to be of little benefit. Finally, when asked if they would pursue research if it were not mandatory, the responses were evenly divided: one-third of the interviewees said they would still conduct research, another third were uncertain, and the remaining third stated they would not pursue it. Theme Summary Positive Aspects of the Current Research Curriculum There is a wide range of professors with diverse expertise available for students to choose as research mentors. Faculty members are highly supportive and willing to guide students throughout their research journey. Tonkla Ramathibodi offers strong support by providing a professor-matching platform on its website, making it easier for students to connect with suitable advisors. Funding for student research projects is readily available through Tonkla Ramathibodi, which helps reduce financial barriers to conducting research. Institution-hosted seminars create valuable opportunities for students to generate research ideas and find appropriate advisors. Many students, however, express a preference for in-person seminars over online ones. Some students find that participating in research projects clarifies how the concepts learned in class can be applied in real-world research settings. However, others report gaining more knowledge about research from external experiences than from the curriculum itself, with some outright stating that the research course is not particularly useful. A student highlighted the benefits of the research club and journal club, hosted collaboratively by professors and students, as excellent resources for learning and engagement. Another student also mentioned that the research course is structured in a way that, if followed diligently, enables medical students to learn, understand, participate in, and complete their research work successfully—a design that many consider a strong point of the curriculum. Challenges with the Current Research Curriculum The curriculum requires students to select an advisor by their second year (pre-clinical stage) and submit a research question by the third year, which many students feel is too early. At this stage, students often have not yet identified their clinical interests, or they may discover later during clinical years that they are more passionate about different topics. Many students believe the advisor-to-student ratio is inadequate, leaving insufficient advisors available for all interested students or groups. Some students expressed that lessons from research-related courses were not applicable to real-life research settings, although they could not provide specific examples to illustrate this disconnect. The dual-campus system, requiring students to alternate between Ramathibodi Hospital and Chakri Naruebodindra Medical Institute, complicates the logistics of conducting research and meeting with advisors. Research activities are typically scheduled for Wednesdays, creating a non-continuous workflow (one day per week). Given the already demanding nature of medical studies, students have limited time to dedicate to their research projects. Another concern is resource dilution. Since every student is required to complete a research project, resources may be stretched thin, potentially reducing the support available for those genuinely passionate about research. This raises questions about whether the quality of student research output justifies the increased workload, effort, and financial investment required from faculty and the institution. Clinical professors often do not participate in institution-hosted research seminars. As a result, students attending these seminars frequently encounter research topics unrelated to clinical practice, despite a significant interest among students in clinical research. The funding available for student research through Tonkla Ramathibodi is sometimes insufficient to cover the costs of more complex or ambitious projects. Additionally, some students reported delays in the transfer of approved funding, which hindered the timely progress of their research. Suggested Improvements for the Research Curriculum Consider revising the mandatory research requirement for students. Either make research optional or postpone the advisor matching and research question submission to later in the program, such as during clinical years. This would allow students to explore their clinical interests before committing to a research topic. Making research non-mandatory would also enable advisors to work with students who are genuinely interested in research, rather than those participating out of obligation. Some interviewees suggest that curriculum planners reassess the true goals of the research curriculum and evaluate whether mandating research effectively achieves these objectives. Increase faculty subscriptions to academic journals to provide students with access to papers that are currently behind paywalls. Allocate dedicated time periods, such as weeks or months similar to elective rotations, solely for students to focus on their research projects. Ensure that the Tonkla Ramathibodi website is updated in real time, reflecting accurate contact information for advisors and the number of student slots each professor is willing to accommodate. Enhance the current Tonkla Ramathibodi service by adopting a more proactive role in the advisor-student matching process. For instance, instead of relying on students to reach out via email, the service could actively contact students and help them find suitable advisors. This approach could support students who are less proactive while ensuring efficient matching. However, the feasibility and potential outcomes of this change would require further evaluation. Opinion on the Mandatory Nature of Research Projects for Medical Students The majority of interviewees opposed making research projects mandatory, citing that not all medical students aspire to become researchers or professors. Many are solely focused on pursuing careers as hospitalists. Some, however, expressed support for having research as a mandatory subject, as long as it does not require completing a full research project. Would the participant still pursue research if it were not mandatory? Yes (n=6) Maybe (n=7) No (n=6) Discussion Our analysis uncovered several key insights into how medical students initiate research. Firstly, most students began their research journeys in basic science or clinical research. Discussions with faculty members specializing in their areas of interest emerged as the most critical factor for initiating their first research projects, followed by conducting self-driven literature reviews and attending research seminars. Interestingly, the importance of research seminars declined for subsequent projects. This trend could be attributed to seminars primarily serving as sources of inspiration and guidance for novice researchers, while offering fewer novel ideas for experienced participants. Alternatively, students may have limited opportunities or willingness to attend external seminars compared to well-promoted events at Ramathibodi, such as the Research Camp, Research Market, and Research Tour, which are highly encouraged for all students. Additionally, the research curriculum may play a role in nudging students to participate in research, particularly by motivating them to attend introductory programs like the research camp early in their academic journey. Our findings also revealed a significant association between a GPA above 3.5 and a higher likelihood of initiating multiple research projects. This may stem from students with higher GPAs being more academically inclined, possessing a broader knowledge base, and showing a greater interest in research. These results align closely with previous studies, which found that students with higher GPAs are more likely to engage in research than their peers with lower GPAs [ 18 ]. Notably, there was no statistically significant relationship between gender and participation in research initiation. Regarding advisor selection, institution-hosted research seminars proved to be the most influential factor in connecting students with potential mentors. This was closely followed by students directly approaching their professors, likely due to the professors’ accessibility and the visibility of their specialties during lectures. The success of research seminars is further evidenced by students’ ability to work more independently on subsequent projects, employing alternative methods to identify and connect with new advisors. The results of the interviews revealed a diverse range of starting points and motivations behind medical students’ research projects. However, a robust support system provided by the institution plays a critical role in reducing barriers and enabling these ideas to develop into successful research projects. One notable support initiative at our institution is the Tonkla Ramathibodi program, which is widely praised for facilitating numerous research endeavors. The program offers essential resources, including a comprehensive database of professors and their research interests available on its website. Additionally, backend staff assist students by connecting them with professors whose expertise aligns with their proposed research projects. The Tonkla Ramathibodi program also provides funding for student projects, reducing reliance on advisor-sourced grants and making it easier for students to embark on their research journeys. Another key support system at Ramathibodi is the institution-hosted seminars, which provide invaluable opportunities for professors to showcase their work and for students to engage with potential mentors. These events significantly enhance the student-professor matching process, contributing to the institution's high success rate in fostering research collaborations. Moreover, many faculty members at Ramathibodi are familiar with and supportive of the research program, and they are highly willing to mentor students, creating a nurturing environment for academic growth. One interesting proposition from previous research is the implementation of peer-to-peer mentorship, which has been shown to effectively encourage students to explore research topics in their fields of interest and could serve as a valuable addition to Ramathibodi's already supportive academic environment [ 21 ]. On the other hand, some challenges persist within the research curriculum itself. These challenges mainly fall into two categories: an overly accelerated timeline and the mandatory nature of research projects. Nearly all interview participants expressed dissatisfaction with having to select research advisors and projects during their pre-clinical years. This timing is problematic because pre-clinical students have limited exposure to hospital settings and clinical rotations, often leading them to choose pre-clinical research topics or specialties they later find uninteresting in their clinical years. Another issue stems from the requirement that all students complete a research project. Even among participants who would have pursued research voluntarily, there was opposition to making it mandatory for every medical student. The rationale is that not all students aspire to careers in academia; some prefer to focus on becoming hospitalists. As a result, the mandatory requirement can dilute available funding and faculty resources, forcing professors to supervise both interested and uninterested students, which may lead to mediocre projects and inefficient use of resources. One proposed solution is to maintain research courses as a curriculum requirement for all medical students but to remove the obligation to complete a research project. This adjustment could ensure that all students gain foundational research skills while allowing those with genuine interest to pursue projects more meaningfully. The feasibility of such a curriculum change would require further discussion and careful evaluation. In fact, prior studies have emphasized that well-structured research programs play a pivotal role in enhancing student engagement and interest in research pursuits [ 22 ]. The limitations of this study include issues with generalizability, as the conclusions were drawn from a cohort of 2023 third-year medical students from Ramathibodi Hospital. These findings may not apply to institutions with different cultures or curricula. Another limitation is sampling bias, as the use of convenience, purposive, and snowball sampling methods could result in participants being disproportionate to those more engaged or interested in research. Additionally, the study relies on self-reported data, which introduces the potential for bias. The timing of data collection also presents a challenge: quantitative data were collected at the end of the pre-clinical year (third year), while qualitative interviews were conducted during the middle of the clinical year (fourth year), potentially leading to differing viewpoints. Moreover, capturing only a snapshot of a single cohort may not fully represent the evolution of students’ attitudes and experiences with research throughout their medical school journey. Finally, while the study examines factors influencing research initiation and advisor matching, it does not explore the quality of completed research projects or their long-term impact on students' careers. To address these limitations, future research could involve a broader range of participants, encompassing students from their first year to their final year, to better capture changes in attitudes and experiences over time. Expanding the study to include other institutions or conducting a multi-institutional study could provide insights into how different curricula and cultural contexts shape students’ research experiences. For Ramathibodi specifically, replicating the study after implementing curriculum changes could help assess whether adjustments lead to different outcomes. Transitioning from a cross-sectional to a longitudinal study design would allow for a more comprehensive understanding of how students' perspectives on research evolve throughout medical school. While similar in scope, longitudinal studies could reveal subtle differences with potential implications for curriculum development and research engagement strategies. Conclusion We recommend that medical schools with research curricula focus on the key factors that students consider most important when initiating research projects. This approach would enable them to develop effective support systems, similar to those at Ramathibodi, to better facilitate and encourage student research endeavors. If institutions adopt such strategies, they could potentially achieve significant increases in the number of students engaging in research projects. Finally, as the findings highlight, while Ramathibodi has successfully implemented strategies to promote and support research, there are still several areas for improvement. Addressing these issues could enhance student satisfaction and potentially elevate the quality of research conducted by medical students. Declarations Ethics approval This study received approval from the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, under study number MURA2023/716. Consent for publication All interview participants provided written consent for publication. Copies of the signed consent forms are available upon request. 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 interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Funding The study did not receive any funding. Author’s Contribution S.P. conceptualized the study, curated and analyzed the data, conducted formal analysis and investigation, and contributed to the methodology. S.P. also handled visualization and contributed to the writing of the original draft as well as the review and editing of the manuscript. M.J. curated and analyzed data, contributed to methodology and visualization, and assisted in writing the original draft. P.K. conceptualized the study, developed the methodology, and provided project administration, resources, and supervision. P.K. also validated the study and contributed to the review and editing of the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgement The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to Samrit Srithamrongsawat, M.D., Ph.D., and Peerasit Sitthirat, M.D., for their contributions in refining the interview questions. Special appreciation is extended to Peerasit Sitthirat, M.D., for his assistance with voice transcription and his thoughtful guidance throughout the project. Special thanks are also extended to Pat Ngamdachakij for his unwavering advice and support. References Wickramasinghe, D. P., Perera, C. S., Senarathna, S., & Samarasekera, D. N. (2013). Patterns and trends of medical student research. BMC medical education, 13, 175. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-13-175 Van Eyk, H. J., Hooiveld, M. H., Van Leeuwen, T. N., Van der wurff, B. L., De Craen, A. J., & Dekker, F. W. (2010). Scientific output of Dutch medical students. Medical Teacher, 32(3), 231-235. doi:10.3109/01421591003596592 Kan CK, Qureshi MM, Paracha M, Sachs TE, Sarfaty S, Hirsch AE. Effect of Medical Student Contributions on Academic Productivity: Analysis of Student Authorship Over Time. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2021;12:481-489 https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S301041 Wickramasinghe, D. P., Perera, C. S., Senarathna, S., & Samarasekera, D. N. (2013). Patterns and trends of medical student research. BMC medical education, 13, 175. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-13-175 Urrunaga-Pastor, D., Alarcon-Ruiz, C. A., Heredia, P., Huapaya-Huertas, O., Toro-Huamanchumo, C. J., Acevedo-Villar, T., Arestegui-Sánchez, L. J., Taype-Rondan, A., & Mayta-Tristán, P. (2020). The scientific production of medical students in Lima, Peru. Heliyon, 6(3), e03542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03542 Touissi, Y., Boulaich, O., El Idrissi, F. E., Hjiej, G., Stitou, O., Belakbyer, H., Hajjioui, A., & Fourtassi, M. (2023). Medical students' contribution to research; the scientific output of medical theses held in Moroccan medical schools during the last decade (2011-2021). Medical education online, 28(1), 2218677. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2023.2218677 Shareef, M. A., Obad, A. S., Salah, H. T., Eshaq, A. M., Hoilat, J., Alsaffar, A., Bakather, A. M., Alnajjar, W., Fothan, A. M., Almedani, M., Sulaihim, A., Al-Kattan, K. M., & Alamodi, A. A. (2020). Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Medical Students' Research Output in Five Developing Countries. Cureus, 12(5), e8026. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.8026 Abusamak, M., AlQato, S., Alrfooh, H. H., Altheeb, R., Bazbaz, L., Suleiman, R., Almansi, A., Karajeh, A., Alkhalaileh, A., & Al-Amer, R. (2024). Knowledge, attitudes, practices and barriers of medical research among undergraduate medical students in Jordan: a cross-sectional survey. BMC medical education, 24(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-05002-9 Assar, A., Matar, S. G., Hasabo, E. A., Elsayed, S. M., Zaazouee, M. S., Hamdallah, A., Elshanbary, A. A., Khaled, A., Badr, H., Abukmail, H., Ragab, K. M., Soliman, S. S., & IMedRA team of collaborators (2022). Knowledge, attitudes, practices and perceived barriers towards research in undergraduate medical students of six Arab countries. BMC medical education, 22(1), 44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03121-3 Olajide, T., Arokoyo, K., Adesola, A., Okeke, S., Abdullateef, R., Anele, F., Oyedokun, A., Ogunniyi, A., & Akinyemi, R. (2024). Building a research culture among nigerian medical students: the modus operandi of the college research and innovation hub. BMC medical education, 24(1), 1465. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06518-4 Amgad, M., Man Kin Tsui, M., Liptrott, S. J., & Shash, E. (2015). Medical Student Research: An Integrated Mixed-Methods Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PloS one, 10(6), e0127470. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127470 Solomon, S. S., Tom, S. C., Pichert, J., Wasserman, D., & Powers, A. C. (2003). Impact of medical student research in the development of physician-scientists. Journal of investigative medicine : the official publication of the American Federation for Clinical Research, 51(3), 149–156. https://doi.org/10.1136/jim-51-03-17 Duan, G. Y., Choo, Z. Y., Halabi, D. K., Rosenblatt, A. E., & Ruiz de Luzuriaga, A. M. (2024). Characteristics and career outcomes of dermatology-focused medical student research grant recipients. Clinics in dermatology, 42(5), 547–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2024.07.015 Burgoyne, L. N., O'Flynn, S., & Boylan, G. B. (2010). Undergraduate Medical Research: The student perspective. Medical Education Online, 15(1), 5212. doi:10.3402/meo.v15i0.5212 Nel, D., Burman, R. J., Hoffman, R., & Randera-Rees, S. (2013). The attitudes of medical students to research. South African medical journal = Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir geneeskunde, 104(1), 33–36. https://doi.org/10.7196/samj.7058 Salloum, R. H., Nazha, B., & Zgheib, N. K. (2014). Interest and involvement in research during medical school: A global comparison of students at high- and low-income universities [Abstract]. Medical Science Educator, 24(1), 65-73. doi:10.1007/s40670-014-0019-0 Öcek, Z., Batı, H., Sezer, E. D., Köroğlu, Ö A., Yılmaz, Ö, Yılmaz, N. D., & Mandıracıoğlu, A. (2021). Research training program in a Turkish Medical School: Challenges, barriers and opportunities from the perspectives of the students and faculty members. BMC Medical Education, 21(1). doi:10.1186/s12909-020-02454-1 Alhabib, R. K., Alhusseini, N., Aboalsamh, A. G., Adi, G., Ismail, A., Hajja, A., Alammari, D., Khalil, Z., Alharbi, M. A., & Albahiti, S. K. (2023). Motivators and barriers to research participation among medical students in Saudi Arabia. PloS one, 18(4), e0284990. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284990 Alamri, Y., Monasterio, E., & Wilkinson, T. J. (2021). Factors Predictive of Medical Student Involvement in Research: Results from a New Zealand Institution. Advances in medical education and practice, 12, 183–187. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S284117 Osunronbi, T., Adeboye, W., Faluyi, D., Sofela, J., Abankwa, E., Abraha, S., Adamu-Biu, F., Ahmad, Z., Akhionbare, I., Chimba, C., Corriero, A. C., Fofanah, I. J., Ibeanusi, I., Ibrahim, U., Inyang, D., Jones, R., Kolawole, A., Madume, R., Mandangu, C., Mberu, V., … REMED-U. K. collaborators (2023). Predictors of self-reported research productivity amongst medical students in the United Kingdom: a national cross-sectional survey. BMC medical education, 23(1), 412. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04412-z Keller, T. E., Logan, K., Lindwall, J., & Beals, C. (2017). Peer mentoring for undergraduates in a research-focused diversity initiative. Metropolitan universities, 28(3), 50–66. https://doi.org/10.18060/21542 Mokhtari B, Badalzadeh R, Ghaffarifar S. The next generation of physician-researchers: undergraduate medical students' and residents' attitudes, challenges, and approaches towards addressing them. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1):1313. Published 2024 Nov 14. doi:10.1186/s12909-024-06166-8 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files SupplementaryFile1.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted 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-5784741","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":400488464,"identity":"743abd63-8a64-4c3e-ac21-265d7da04f70","order_by":0,"name":"Settanan Plangsiri","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ramathibodi Hospital","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Settanan","middleName":"","lastName":"Plangsiri","suffix":""},{"id":400488465,"identity":"f6e4e19d-a90e-4764-846b-07928bdf690a","order_by":1,"name":"Manisara Jirapornsuwan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ramathibodi Hospital","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Manisara","middleName":"","lastName":"Jirapornsuwan","suffix":""},{"id":400488466,"identity":"a26feadb-ec8f-452c-87ed-c6b029d7cad4","order_by":2,"name":"Phanuwich Kaewkamjornchai","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Chakri Naruebodindra Medical Institute","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Phanuwich","middleName":"","lastName":"Kaewkamjornchai","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-01-08 01:38:04","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5784741/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5784741/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":73788026,"identity":"e4165616-d434-4755-aaaf-df630d6336f3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-14 16:33:39","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":35279,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAssociation between gender and research initiation\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5784741/v1/e6776e5e5b16d04c9c5ceca1.png"},{"id":73788027,"identity":"d6e39f2d-9dad-4d90-844f-846b5486d4d1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-14 16:33:39","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":25816,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAssociation between GPA and number of research\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5784741/v1/60178633bd964656ba1158f7.png"},{"id":73789407,"identity":"d57ded39-4abc-459b-b655-8468708b7ad0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-14 16:41:39","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":33234,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eNumber of the research topic initiated by medical students.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5784741/v1/a588137dc2ac86de2e55ede8.png"},{"id":73788035,"identity":"50b5fe24-96d3-4783-a0ec-123dae593209","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-14 16:33:39","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":57111,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFactors students rated as ‘moderately important’ and ‘most important’ for their research topic initiation, comparing between 1\u003csup\u003est\u003c/sup\u003e research and the others.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5784741/v1/a7eaa9d7fb9a323f21e4ded7.png"},{"id":73788029,"identity":"fdabc5e8-7fdc-4fe1-8c92-490a3e6f4342","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-14 16:33:39","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":56809,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFactors students rated as ‘Least important’ for their research topic initiation, comparing between 1\u003csup\u003est\u003c/sup\u003e research and the others.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5784741/v1/569814eaaa37c0b0bff14cda.png"},{"id":73789409,"identity":"4c4ea1a1-71a6-4b25-89d7-74af0036d153","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-14 16:41:39","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":48643,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFactors of how students recruit their research advisors, comparing between 1\u003csup\u003est\u003c/sup\u003e research and the others.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5784741/v1/d6966b7faf5fc9f945d2bc4e.png"},{"id":83443983,"identity":"7cb70b8f-aeff-4705-a991-867b17ca0d27","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-26 10:32:13","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":737515,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5784741/v1/f891b44c-03ae-499d-807e-12205a3d0ccc.pdf"},{"id":73789408,"identity":"1b16ea55-00ab-4272-a067-ee9828f97a84","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-14 16:41:39","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":13338,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryFile1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5784741/v1/c199025a7d1cd25a0b84ef84.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Fostering Research Engagement and Ideation: Insights from Medical Students in Thailand","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn recent years, there has been a growing trend of medical students engaging in research [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR2 CR3\" citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. Countries with medical education systems similar to Thailand's undergraduate-level programs, such as the Netherlands, Iran, the UK, and Pakistan, have reported a significant increase in high-quality research publications [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. Similarly, countries requiring an undergraduate degree before medical school enrollment, such as the United States and Canada, have also demonstrated notable research output from medical students [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. However, in countries like Peru and Nigeria, research productivity remains inconsistent across institutions. Additionally, other regions, including Morocco, Arab nations (Egypt, Algeria, Sudan, Jordan, Syria, and Palestine), and GCC countries (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates), face challenges in fostering student participation in research. These countries need to place greater emphasis on encouraging research activities and equipping students with the necessary skills and knowledge to conduct research effectively [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR6 CR7 CR8 CR9\" citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. Students who have completed their first research project are more likely to pursue further research [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e], exhibit increased interest in academia [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e], and consider pursuing residency [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. Moreover, students who perceive themselves as having more research skills or experience like graduate students are more inclined to engage in research [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, some existing studies have demonstrated that despite having a positive outlook on the importance of research, only a limited number of students initiate research projects voluntarily [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. Obstacles preventing students from engaging in research include a lack of knowledge [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e], limited free time, and inadequate guidance [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital is one such medical school in Thailand, the middle-income country in south-east Asia, that incorporates research education into compulsory undergraduate medical curriculum. In addition to introducing research methods, the institution organizes a variety of research-focused seminars to promote research opportunities for the students, such as the Research Market, Research Camp, Research Tour, Dean\u0026rsquo;s PARTIEs (Pursuing Academic Research Towards International Excellence) and Science Fair. The Research Market and Research Camp were designed to enable professors to host their own research booths and conduct small seminars at scheduled times, providing opportunities for students to listen, engage in discussions, and establish connections with potential advisors. The Research Tour offers students a guided visit to various professors\u0026rsquo; laboratories, where they can observe ongoing projects and gain insights into the professors\u0026rsquo; research. Dean\u0026rsquo;s Parties serve as exclusive events where distinguished professors and senior medical students, including recipients of the Prince Mahidol Award Youth Program scholarship, share their experiences and deliver talks to junior students, fostering inspiration and mentorship. Lastly, the Science Fair showcases senior medical students\u0026rsquo; research posters, allowing new students to explore and learn from their peers\u0026rsquo; work. By participating in these institution-hosted seminars, students have the opportunity to engage with faculty members conducting research across diverse fields, gaining valuable exposure to various research areas and methodologies. Moreover, the institution supports medical students through initiatives like the \u0026lsquo;Tonkla Ramathibodi\u0026rsquo; Research Funding Program, which offers limited funding for research projects. The program also maintains a dedicated website that lists professors along with their areas of expertise and contact information. Additionally, the Tonkla Ramathibodi program includes back-office staff who assist students by answering questions, providing guidance, and helping to match students with suitable advisors based on their research interests or proposed topics. Students can easily access this support by emailing the program with their specific interests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the context of the Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, although all students receive the same curriculum, only a portion of them can independently conceive research topics and initiate research projects faster than their peers. Moreover, it remains unclear whether the various research-supporting activities organized by the institution effectively facilitate research question formulation among students. Consequently, the investigators aim to assess the origin of research topics initiated by Ramathibodi medical students to analyze and identify factors contributing to successful research project initiation. The findings of this study could inform curriculum development, activities, and learning environments that support research project initiation for relevant stakeholders.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study utilized a mix-sequential survey including quantitative and qualitative research design to identify and evaluate the most prevalent methods students used to generate research ideas they were interested in pursuing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eQuantitative study\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo analyze and identify the factors that influence the initiation of research projects among medical students. A questionnaire-based quantitative design was administered, focusing on the process of research idea initiation and the approaches students employed to find potential research advisors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy\u0026nbsp;design\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;population\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study population comprises of third-year medical students from the Faculty of Medicine at Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University. Data regarding students\u0026apos; research experiences were collected through an online survey. A convenience sampling approach was employed to gather survey responses. The sample size encompassed more than half of\u0026nbsp;the entire cohort of third-year medical students (n=139). Data collection took place in January 2023.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSurvey Development and Validation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe survey was constructed based on findings from a comprehensive literature review on factors influencing research engagement among medical students [18-20]. Following this, the investigators consulted three experts in research and medical education to refine the survey items for clarity, relevance, and comprehensiveness. The draft survey was then pilot-tested with 10 third-year medical students to ensure clarity and precision of the questions. Feedback from these students was used to make final adjustments before the survey was distributed to the full cohort.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eData\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe collected data included: (1) personal information such as name, student number, gender, and GPA, and (2) research-focused questionnaire responses encompassing the type of research, current student progress, the process through which students developed their research ideas, and the most significant events that assisted students in identifying advisors for their projects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe steps for collecting and analyzing quantitative data are as follows:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData collection to identify factors influencing research topic initiation, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ei.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Gender\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eii.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Cumulative Grade Point Average (GPA)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eiii.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Number and types of research projects previously participated in during research topic initiation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eiv.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Importance levels of various factors contributing to the initiation of each research topic\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ev.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Importance levels of various factors contributing to finding a research advisor\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003evi.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Other factors contributing to the initiation of each research topic and the importance levels of these factors\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData analysis, consisting of:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ei.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Descriptive analysis to summarize the data\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eii.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Statistical tests, including the t-test and chi-square test, to examine the relationships between the data\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStatistical\u0026nbsp;analysis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this study, the statistical analysis incorporated two primary components. First, a descriptive analysis was conducted to summarize the data, offering insights into the general trends and central tendencies within the dataset, such as the most popular or prevalent methods students employed to generate their project ideas. Second, statistical tests, including the t-test and chi-square test, were applied to examine the relationships between the data. These tests facilitated a rigorous evaluation of the associations between variables, such as GPA and the number of research projects, as well as the potential influence of gender on research involvement. By integrating both descriptive and inferential statistical techniques, this study provided a comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing research idea initiation and advisor selection among medical students.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eQualitative study\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA structured interview was conducted to explore and uncover the underlying themes in greater depth. Participants from the qualitative study cohort were selected using a combination of purposive recruitment and snowball sampling methods. Interviews continued until thematic saturation was achieved, with a total of 19 participants included. All interview sessions were recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis was conducted through independent coding by two investigators, with any conflicts resolved by a third investigator. The interviews were conducted in Thai. The interview questions included the following:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;What motivated you to start or become interested in your project(s)? Please explain.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;What are your opinions on the strengths and weaknesses of the Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, in supporting research? Are there specific areas where improvements could help future medical students find their passion and inspiration for research?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;How were you matched with your advisor for your project(s)? Please elaborate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;What should the Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, improve to help students find and connect with suitable professors?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;How would you describe an ideal research advisor?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e6.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Do you agree with the current requirement for all medical students at the Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, to participate in research?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e7.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;If research were not mandatory, would you still choose to engage in it?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese questions were designed to delve deeper into areas that could not be fully addressed through quantitative methods, particularly focusing on research ideation and advisor matching. Additional questions about the research-oriented curriculum at the Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, were also included. The original Thai version of the questionnaire is provided in Supplementary File 1.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eQuantitative Data\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOut of the 139 students surveyed, 67.63% had participated in initiating at least one research topic. Chi-square tests showed no statistical significance between gender\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash;\u0026nbsp;female\u0026nbsp;or male and research initiation, with a p-value of 0.757 and a chi-square value of 0.096, which is below the critical value of 3.84, see Figure 1. On the other hand, independent two-tailed t-tests demonstrated a statistically significant relationship between students with a GPA higher than 3.5 and the initiation of more research projects, with a p-value of 0.04012, see\u0026nbsp;Figure 2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe majority of students participated in basic science research (37.2%), followed by clinical research (35.6%) and medical education research (10.8%), see\u0026nbsp;Figure 3. The most influential factors for initiating their first research project were discussions with faculty members specializing in their area of interest (67.0%), attending institution-hosted research seminars (39.4%), and conducting self-directed literature reviews (34.0%), see\u0026nbsp;Figure 4. In contrast, interactions with peers, such as juniors and seniors, as well as insights from class lectures, were deemed less significant,\u0026nbsp;Figure 5. These trends largely carried over to students\u0026apos; subsequent research endeavors, with discussions with specialized faculty (71.9%) and self-literature reviews (56.3%) remaining pivotal, while the importance of attending research seminars declined notably (21.9%).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudents primarily identified their research advisors through institutional research seminars (40.4%) and by directly approaching their class lecturers (23.4%). For subsequent projects, however, recommendations from other professors became an important method for selecting advisors (28.1%). Interestingly, the reliance on research seminars for finding advisors decreased significantly in later projects (40.4% for initial advisors vs. 21.9% for subsequent advisors), see Figure 6.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eQualitative Data\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe result of the interview can be broadly categorized into three main themes: research ideation, advisor matching, and opinions on the curriculum. All participants reported involvement in at least one research project.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eResearch ideation\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe first theme identified through the interviews centered on personal motivation for research and the ideation process for research projects. As anticipated, these aspects varied significantly among participants. Notably, more than half of the participants highlighted the Tonkla Ramathibodi website or institution-hosted research seminars as valuable resources for generating ideas for their research projects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 287px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTheme\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 301px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 287px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePersonal Motivations Behind Initiating Each Research\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 301px;\"\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eResearch being a mandatory component of the curriculum\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eA desire to explore and answer questions sparked by classroom discussions or personal experiences\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEncouragement or invitations from peers or professors to join research projects\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eViewing research as a valuable step to support future career goals in medicine\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAn interest in exploring potential research opportunities within a personally preferred field or specialty\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eA strong intrinsic motivation, with some interviewees expressing a desire to pursue research simply for the sake of doing it\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 287px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIdeation and Initiation of Project\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 301px;\"\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe project idea did not originate from the interviewee but was suggested by external sources such as professors, mentors, or friends.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSome interviewees had a specific interest, such as a disease or medical specialty, and sought further inspiration by browsing the Tonkla Ramathibodi website or consulting with professors.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe idea emerged as a question sparked by classroom lectures or academic exposure.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eResearch seminars organized by the institution provided a platform to explore potential project ideas.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIdeas were also developed through external events, such as hackathons or other activities not specifically designed for student research exploration.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eParticipants adapted concepts from extracurricular activities they were already involved in and transformed them into research projects.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003col start=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAdvisor matching\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe responses regarding how participants connected with their advisors revealed a variety of sources. In many cases, when the research project was initiated by a friend of the participant rather than the participant themselves, an advisor was already in place. Interestingly, many participants mentioned resources such as the Tonkla Ramathibodi website, email communication with its staff, and research seminars hosted by the institution as key channels for discovering and connecting with professors. When discussing the qualities of an ideal advisor, the responses highlighted varying expectations. While some participants preferred advisors who provided a detailed, step-by-step plan for the project, others favored a degree of independence in conducting their research. This balance of freedom and guidance ultimately depends on clear communication between the student and the advisor to align mutual expectations and ensure a productive working relationship.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 285px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTheme\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 303px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 285px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMatching with Advisors\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 303px;\"\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe participant consulted the professor overseeing the research subject to identify a suitable advisor.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe project advisor was a faculty lecturer.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRecommendations were received from other professors.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eA friend provided a recommendation for the advisor.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe mentor professor assigned by the institution became the research advisor.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe professor\u0026apos;s contact email was found through the Tonkla Ramathibodi website.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eInitial contact was made with the professor during institution-hosted research seminars.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAn email was sent to Tonkla Ramathibodi\u0026apos;s general contact, and the staff responded with a professor recommendation.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe participant was invited to collaborate again by their previous research project advisor.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 285px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQualities of an Ideal Advisor\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 303px;\"\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eExpertise in the Field: An ideal advisor should possess deep expertise in the field they are advising, ensuring they can provide valuable insights and guidance.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSupportive Environment: They should foster a casual and friendly yet professional environment, making students feel comfortable asking questions without fear of judgment, pressure, or stress.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eInspiration and Leadership: An ideal advisor should be passionate about their work, inspiring students while providing guidance and teaching. They should strike a balance between support and independence\u0026mdash;offering help without taking over the project. Effective delegation of tasks is crucial.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eResourceful Guidance: Advisors should provide students with resources and additional materials to help them deepen their understanding of the research topic, rather than simply directing them to \u0026ldquo;look it up online.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eClear and Effective Communication: An ideal advisor should communicate clearly and promptly, especially regarding project expectations and responsibilities. Utilizing fast communication channels, like messaging apps, can greatly enhance the advising experience.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSelf-Awareness and Time Management: Advisors should recognize their own limitations, such as their response time and workload capacity. It\u0026rsquo;s a bonus if they can personally oversee the student\u0026rsquo;s progress.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEmpathy and Understanding: They should empathize with students, acknowledging that they are learners balancing academic studies, and not treating them as full-fledged research assistants.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSelective Engagement: An ideal advisor should be upfront about rejecting topics they are not interested in, saving both their time and the student\u0026rsquo;s.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCurriculum Awareness: Advisors should understand the timeline of the research curriculum, helping students stay on track and develop strong time management skills.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOpen-Mindedness: An ideal advisor should be open to new ideas and concepts, encouraging innovative thinking and creativity.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eConstructive Feedback: Advisors should provide honest, constructive feedback, especially when students make mistakes, fostering growth while maintaining a positive atmosphere.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePersonalized Support: Recognizing that each student has unique ambitions, an ideal advisor should help scope research topics to align with the student\u0026rsquo;s goals and aspirations.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 285px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEvaluating the Effectiveness of Advisor Matching in the Curriculum and Identifying Areas for Improvement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 303px;\"\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eInstitution-hosted research seminars were highly appreciated by most of the interviewed students, with a preference for onsite seminars over online ones.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe contact information provided on the Tonkla Ramathibodi website was also well-received, but it should be regularly updated to ensure accuracy and reflect the actual contact details used by advisors.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBeyond just contact details, the Tonkla Ramathibodi website could also include information about each professor\u0026apos;s capacity and availability for new students.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eExtending the timeline for professor matching in the research curriculum would be beneficial. The current requirement for students to have a registered advisor by their second year is perceived as too rushed.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOrganizing workshops to teach students how to write formal emails to professors would be highly valuable.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIncreasing visibility and opportunities to connect with clinical advisors is strongly encouraged.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNew medical students should be encouraged to observe their senior peers working on research projects, providing them with early exposure and inspiration.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003col start=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOpinion on the curriculum\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudents expressed satisfaction with the approachability of professors and the ample funding provided by Tonkla Ramathibodi. The research seminars hosted by the institution were also praised, with many students highlighting their high quality. However, there is a clear preference for onsite seminars over online versions.\u0026nbsp;Despite these positives, most students expressed dissatisfaction with the mandatory nature of the research project required for completing the medical degree. Several students voiced concerns about the timing of the research course, which requires them to select advisors and topics during their pre-clinical years. This structure often leads to a mismatch during their clinical years when their interests may shift to different fields or specialties, but they are bound to continue working on the projects chosen earlier.\u0026nbsp;Opinions on the research course itself were mixed. Some students reported that the course was helpful in supporting their research projects, while others found it to be of little benefit.\u0026nbsp;Finally, when asked if they would pursue research if it were not mandatory, the responses were evenly divided: one-third of the interviewees said they would still conduct research, another third were uncertain, and the remaining third stated they would not pursue it.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTheme\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePositive Aspects of the Current Research Curriculum\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThere is a wide range of professors with diverse expertise available for students to choose as research mentors. Faculty members are highly supportive and willing to guide students throughout their research journey.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTonkla Ramathibodi offers strong support by providing a professor-matching platform on its website, making it easier for students to connect with suitable advisors.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFunding for student research projects is readily available through Tonkla Ramathibodi, which helps reduce financial barriers to conducting research.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eInstitution-hosted seminars create valuable opportunities for students to generate research ideas and find appropriate advisors. Many students, however, express a preference for in-person seminars over online ones.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSome students find that participating in research projects clarifies how the concepts learned in class can be applied in real-world research settings. However, others report gaining more knowledge about research from external experiences than from the curriculum itself, with some outright stating that the research course is not particularly useful.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eA student highlighted the benefits of the research club and journal club, hosted collaboratively by professors and students, as excellent resources for learning and engagement.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAnother student also mentioned that the research course is structured in a way that, if followed diligently, enables medical students to learn, understand, participate in, and complete their research work successfully\u0026mdash;a design that many consider a strong point of the curriculum.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChallenges with the Current Research Curriculum\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe curriculum requires students to select an advisor by their second year (pre-clinical stage) and submit a research question by the third year, which many students feel is too early. At this stage, students often have not yet identified their clinical interests, or they may discover later during clinical years that they are more passionate about different topics.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMany students believe the advisor-to-student ratio is inadequate, leaving insufficient advisors available for all interested students or groups.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSome students expressed that lessons from research-related courses were not applicable to real-life research settings, although they could not provide specific examples to illustrate this disconnect.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe dual-campus system, requiring students to alternate between Ramathibodi Hospital and Chakri Naruebodindra Medical Institute, complicates the logistics of conducting research and meeting with advisors.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eResearch activities are typically scheduled for Wednesdays, creating a non-continuous workflow (one day per week). Given the already demanding nature of medical studies, students have limited time to dedicate to their research projects.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAnother concern is resource dilution. Since every student is required to complete a research project, resources may be stretched thin, potentially reducing the support available for those genuinely passionate about research. This raises questions about whether the quality of student research output justifies the increased workload, effort, and financial investment required from faculty and the institution.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eClinical professors often do not participate in institution-hosted research seminars. As a result, students attending these seminars frequently encounter research topics unrelated to clinical practice, despite a significant interest among students in clinical research.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe funding available for student research through Tonkla Ramathibodi is sometimes insufficient to cover the costs of more complex or ambitious projects. Additionally, some students reported delays in the transfer of approved funding, which hindered the timely progress of their research.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSuggested Improvements for the Research Curriculum\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eConsider revising the mandatory research requirement for students. Either make research optional or postpone the advisor matching and research question submission to later in the program, such as during clinical years. This would allow students to explore their clinical interests before committing to a research topic. Making research non-mandatory would also enable advisors to work with students who are genuinely interested in research, rather than those participating out of obligation. Some interviewees suggest that curriculum planners reassess the true goals of the research curriculum and evaluate whether mandating research effectively achieves these objectives.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIncrease faculty subscriptions to academic journals to provide students with access to papers that are currently behind paywalls.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAllocate dedicated time periods, such as weeks or months similar to elective rotations, solely for students to focus on their research projects.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEnsure that the Tonkla Ramathibodi website is updated in real time, reflecting accurate contact information for advisors and the number of student slots each professor is willing to accommodate.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEnhance the current Tonkla Ramathibodi service by adopting a more proactive role in the advisor-student matching process. For instance, instead of relying on students to reach out via email, the service could actively contact students and help them find suitable advisors. This approach could support students who are less proactive while ensuring efficient matching. However, the feasibility and potential outcomes of this change would require further evaluation.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOpinion on the Mandatory Nature of Research Projects for Medical Students\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe majority of interviewees opposed making research projects mandatory, citing that not all medical students aspire to become researchers or professors. Many are solely focused on pursuing careers as hospitalists.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSome, however, expressed support for having research as a mandatory subject, as long as it does not require completing a full research project.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWould the participant still pursue research if it were not mandatory?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYes (n=6)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMaybe (n=7)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNo (n=6)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur analysis uncovered several key insights into how medical students initiate research. Firstly, most students began their research journeys in basic science or clinical research. Discussions with faculty members specializing in their areas of interest emerged as the most critical factor for initiating their first research projects, followed by conducting self-driven literature reviews and attending research seminars. Interestingly, the importance of research seminars declined for subsequent projects. This trend could be attributed to seminars primarily serving as sources of inspiration and guidance for novice researchers, while offering fewer novel ideas for experienced participants. Alternatively, students may have limited opportunities or willingness to attend external seminars compared to well-promoted events at Ramathibodi, such as the Research Camp, Research Market, and Research Tour, which are highly encouraged for all students. Additionally, the research curriculum may play a role in nudging students to participate in research, particularly by motivating them to attend introductory programs like the research camp early in their academic journey.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur findings also revealed a significant association between a GPA above 3.5 and a higher likelihood of initiating multiple research projects. This may stem from students with higher GPAs being more academically inclined, possessing a broader knowledge base, and showing a greater interest in research. These results align closely with previous studies, which found that students with higher GPAs are more likely to engage in research than their peers with lower GPAs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]. Notably, there was no statistically significant relationship between gender and participation in research initiation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding advisor selection, institution-hosted research seminars proved to be the most influential factor in connecting students with potential mentors. This was closely followed by students directly approaching their professors, likely due to the professors\u0026rsquo; accessibility and the visibility of their specialties during lectures. The success of research seminars is further evidenced by students\u0026rsquo; ability to work more independently on subsequent projects, employing alternative methods to identify and connect with new advisors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results of the interviews revealed a diverse range of starting points and motivations behind medical students\u0026rsquo; research projects. However, a robust support system provided by the institution plays a critical role in reducing barriers and enabling these ideas to develop into successful research projects. One notable support initiative at our institution is the Tonkla Ramathibodi program, which is widely praised for facilitating numerous research endeavors. The program offers essential resources, including a comprehensive database of professors and their research interests available on its website. Additionally, backend staff assist students by connecting them with professors whose expertise aligns with their proposed research projects. The Tonkla Ramathibodi program also provides funding for student projects, reducing reliance on advisor-sourced grants and making it easier for students to embark on their research journeys.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother key support system at Ramathibodi is the institution-hosted seminars, which provide invaluable opportunities for professors to showcase their work and for students to engage with potential mentors. These events significantly enhance the student-professor matching process, contributing to the institution's high success rate in fostering research collaborations. Moreover, many faculty members at Ramathibodi are familiar with and supportive of the research program, and they are highly willing to mentor students, creating a nurturing environment for academic growth. One interesting proposition from previous research is the implementation of peer-to-peer mentorship, which has been shown to effectively encourage students to explore research topics in their fields of interest and could serve as a valuable addition to Ramathibodi's already supportive academic environment [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the other hand, some challenges persist within the research curriculum itself. These challenges mainly fall into two categories: an overly accelerated timeline and the mandatory nature of research projects. Nearly all interview participants expressed dissatisfaction with having to select research advisors and projects during their pre-clinical years. This timing is problematic because pre-clinical students have limited exposure to hospital settings and clinical rotations, often leading them to choose pre-clinical research topics or specialties they later find uninteresting in their clinical years.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother issue stems from the requirement that all students complete a research project. Even among participants who would have pursued research voluntarily, there was opposition to making it mandatory for every medical student. The rationale is that not all students aspire to careers in academia; some prefer to focus on becoming hospitalists. As a result, the mandatory requirement can dilute available funding and faculty resources, forcing professors to supervise both interested and uninterested students, which may lead to mediocre projects and inefficient use of resources.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne proposed solution is to maintain research courses as a curriculum requirement for all medical students but to remove the obligation to complete a research project. This adjustment could ensure that all students gain foundational research skills while allowing those with genuine interest to pursue projects more meaningfully. The feasibility of such a curriculum change would require further discussion and careful evaluation. In fact, prior studies have emphasized that well-structured research programs play a pivotal role in enhancing student engagement and interest in research pursuits [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe limitations of this study include issues with generalizability, as the conclusions were drawn from a cohort of 2023 third-year medical students from Ramathibodi Hospital. These findings may not apply to institutions with different cultures or curricula. Another limitation is sampling bias, as the use of convenience, purposive, and snowball sampling methods could result in participants being disproportionate to those more engaged or interested in research. Additionally, the study relies on self-reported data, which introduces the potential for bias. The timing of data collection also presents a challenge: quantitative data were collected at the end of the pre-clinical year (third year), while qualitative interviews were conducted during the middle of the clinical year (fourth year), potentially leading to differing viewpoints. Moreover, capturing only a snapshot of a single cohort may not fully represent the evolution of students\u0026rsquo; attitudes and experiences with research throughout their medical school journey. Finally, while the study examines factors influencing research initiation and advisor matching, it does not explore the quality of completed research projects or their long-term impact on students' careers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address these limitations, future research could involve a broader range of participants, encompassing students from their first year to their final year, to better capture changes in attitudes and experiences over time. Expanding the study to include other institutions or conducting a multi-institutional study could provide insights into how different curricula and cultural contexts shape students\u0026rsquo; research experiences. For Ramathibodi specifically, replicating the study after implementing curriculum changes could help assess whether adjustments lead to different outcomes. Transitioning from a cross-sectional to a longitudinal study design would allow for a more comprehensive understanding of how students' perspectives on research evolve throughout medical school. While similar in scope, longitudinal studies could reveal subtle differences with potential implications for curriculum development and research engagement strategies.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eWe recommend that medical schools with research curricula focus on the key factors that students consider most important when initiating research projects. This approach would enable them to develop effective support systems, similar to those at Ramathibodi, to better facilitate and encourage student research endeavors. If institutions adopt such strategies, they could potentially achieve significant increases in the number of students engaging in research projects. Finally, as the findings highlight, while Ramathibodi has successfully implemented strategies to promote and support research, there are still several areas for improvement. Addressing these issues could enhance student satisfaction and potentially elevate the quality of research conducted by medical students.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study received approval from the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, under study number MURA2023/716.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll interview participants provided written consent for publication. Copies of the signed consent forms are available upon request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/strong\u003e\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 interest\u003c/strong\u003e\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\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study did not receive any funding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor\u0026rsquo;s Contribution\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eS.P. conceptualized the study, curated and analyzed the data, conducted formal analysis and investigation, and contributed to the methodology. S.P. also handled visualization and contributed to the writing of the original draft as well as the review and editing of the manuscript. M.J. curated and analyzed data, contributed to methodology and visualization, and assisted in writing the original draft. P.K. conceptualized the study, developed the methodology, and provided project administration, resources, and supervision. P.K. also validated the study and contributed to the review and editing of the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to Samrit Srithamrongsawat, M.D., Ph.D., and Peerasit Sitthirat, M.D., for their contributions in refining the interview questions. Special appreciation is extended to Peerasit Sitthirat, M.D., for his assistance with voice transcription and his thoughtful guidance throughout the project. Special thanks are also extended to Pat Ngamdachakij for his unwavering advice and support.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWickramasinghe, D. P., Perera, C. S., Senarathna, S., \u0026amp; Samarasekera, D. N. (2013). Patterns and trends of medical student research. BMC medical education, 13, 175.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-13-175\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVan Eyk, H. J., Hooiveld, M. H., Van Leeuwen, T. N., Van der wurff, B. L., De Craen, A. J., \u0026amp; Dekker, F. W. (2010). Scientific output of Dutch medical students. Medical Teacher, 32(3), 231-235. doi:10.3109/01421591003596592\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKan CK, Qureshi MM, Paracha M, Sachs TE, Sarfaty S, Hirsch AE. Effect of Medical Student Contributions on Academic Productivity: Analysis of Student Authorship Over Time. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2021;12:481-489\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S301041\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWickramasinghe, D. P., Perera, C. S., Senarathna, S., \u0026amp; Samarasekera, D. N. (2013). Patterns and trends of medical student research. BMC medical education, 13, 175.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-13-175\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUrrunaga-Pastor, D., Alarcon-Ruiz, C. A., Heredia, P., Huapaya-Huertas, O., Toro-Huamanchumo, C. J., Acevedo-Villar, T., Arestegui-S\u0026aacute;nchez, L. J., Taype-Rondan, A., \u0026amp; Mayta-Trist\u0026aacute;n, P. (2020). The scientific production of medical students in Lima, Peru. Heliyon, 6(3), e03542.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03542\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTouissi, Y., Boulaich, O., El Idrissi, F. E., Hjiej, G., Stitou, O., Belakbyer, H., Hajjioui, A., \u0026amp; Fourtassi, M. (2023). Medical students\u0026apos; contribution to research; the scientific output of medical theses held in Moroccan medical schools during the last decade (2011-2021). Medical education online, 28(1), 2218677.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2023.2218677\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShareef, M. A., Obad, A. S., Salah, H. T., Eshaq, A. M., Hoilat, J., Alsaffar, A., Bakather, A. M., Alnajjar, W., Fothan, A. M., Almedani, M., Sulaihim, A., Al-Kattan, K. M., \u0026amp; Alamodi, A. A. (2020). Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Medical Students\u0026apos; Research Output in Five Developing Countries. Cureus, 12(5), e8026.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.8026\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAbusamak, M., AlQato, S., Alrfooh, H. H., Altheeb, R., Bazbaz, L., Suleiman, R., Almansi, A., Karajeh, A., Alkhalaileh, A., \u0026amp; Al-Amer, R. (2024). Knowledge, attitudes, practices and barriers of medical research among undergraduate medical students in Jordan: a cross-sectional survey. BMC medical education, 24(1), 23.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-05002-9\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAssar, A., Matar, S. G., Hasabo, E. A., Elsayed, S. M., Zaazouee, M. S., Hamdallah, A., Elshanbary, A. A., Khaled, A., Badr, H., Abukmail, H., Ragab, K. M., Soliman, S. S., \u0026amp; IMedRA team of collaborators (2022). Knowledge, attitudes, practices and perceived barriers towards research in undergraduate medical students of six Arab countries. BMC medical education, 22(1), 44.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03121-3\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOlajide, T., Arokoyo, K., Adesola, A., Okeke, S., Abdullateef, R., Anele, F., Oyedokun, A., Ogunniyi, A., \u0026amp; Akinyemi, R. (2024). Building a research culture among nigerian medical students: the modus operandi of the college research and innovation hub. BMC medical education, 24(1), 1465. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06518-4\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAmgad, M., Man Kin Tsui, M., Liptrott, S. J., \u0026amp; Shash, E. (2015). Medical Student Research: An Integrated Mixed-Methods Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PloS one, 10(6), e0127470. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127470\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSolomon, S. S., Tom, S. C., Pichert, J., Wasserman, D., \u0026amp; Powers, A. C. (2003). Impact of medical student research in the development of physician-scientists. Journal of investigative medicine : the official publication of the American Federation for Clinical Research, 51(3), 149\u0026ndash;156. https://doi.org/10.1136/jim-51-03-17\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDuan, G. Y., Choo, Z. Y., Halabi, D. K., Rosenblatt, A. E., \u0026amp; Ruiz de Luzuriaga, A. M. (2024). Characteristics and career outcomes of dermatology-focused medical student research grant recipients. Clinics in dermatology, 42(5), 547\u0026ndash;556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2024.07.015\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBurgoyne, L. N., O\u0026apos;Flynn, S., \u0026amp; Boylan, G. B. (2010). Undergraduate Medical Research: The student perspective. Medical Education Online, 15(1), 5212. doi:10.3402/meo.v15i0.5212\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNel, D., Burman, R. J., Hoffman, R., \u0026amp; Randera-Rees, S. (2013). The attitudes of medical students to research. South African medical journal = Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir geneeskunde, 104(1), 33\u0026ndash;36. https://doi.org/10.7196/samj.7058\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSalloum, R. H., Nazha, B., \u0026amp; Zgheib, N. K. (2014). Interest and involvement in research during medical school: A global comparison of students at high- and low-income universities [Abstract]. Medical Science Educator, 24(1), 65-73. doi:10.1007/s40670-014-0019-0\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u0026Ouml;cek, Z., Batı, H., Sezer, E. D., K\u0026ouml;roğlu, \u0026Ouml; A., Yılmaz, \u0026Ouml;, Yılmaz, N. D., \u0026amp;amp; Mandıracıoğlu, A. (2021). Research training program in a Turkish Medical School: Challenges, barriers and opportunities from the perspectives of the students and faculty members. BMC Medical Education, 21(1). doi:10.1186/s12909-020-02454-1\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAlhabib, R. K., Alhusseini, N., Aboalsamh, A. G., Adi, G., Ismail, A., Hajja, A., Alammari, D., Khalil, Z., Alharbi, M. A., \u0026amp; Albahiti, S. K. (2023). Motivators and barriers to research participation among medical students in Saudi Arabia. PloS one, 18(4), e0284990.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284990\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAlamri, Y., Monasterio, E., \u0026amp; Wilkinson, T. J. (2021). Factors Predictive of Medical Student Involvement in Research: Results from a New Zealand Institution. Advances in medical education and practice, 12, 183\u0026ndash;187.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S284117\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOsunronbi, T., Adeboye, W., Faluyi, D., Sofela, J., Abankwa, E., Abraha, S., Adamu-Biu, F., Ahmad, Z., Akhionbare, I., Chimba, C., Corriero, A. C., Fofanah, I. J., Ibeanusi, I., Ibrahim, U., Inyang, D., Jones, R., Kolawole, A., Madume, R., Mandangu, C., Mberu, V., \u0026hellip; REMED-U. K. collaborators (2023). Predictors of self-reported research productivity amongst medical students in the United Kingdom: a national cross-sectional survey. BMC medical education, 23(1), 412.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04412-z\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKeller, T. E., Logan, K., Lindwall, J., \u0026amp; Beals, C. (2017). Peer mentoring for undergraduates in a research-focused diversity initiative. Metropolitan universities, 28(3), 50\u0026ndash;66. https://doi.org/10.18060/21542\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMokhtari B, Badalzadeh R, Ghaffarifar S. The next generation of physician-researchers: undergraduate medical students\u0026apos; and residents\u0026apos; attitudes, challenges, and approaches towards addressing them. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1):1313. Published 2024 Nov 14. doi:10.1186/s12909-024-06166-8\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"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":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Medical Education, Undergraduate Medical Education, Research Curriculum","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5784741/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5784741/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch plays a crucial role in fostering critical thinking skills in students, which greatly contributes to their future careers. In addition, many life-saving drugs have been developed from discoveries made through medical student research. However, students often struggle to find captivating research topics and suitable advisors. This study aims to facilitate medical student engagement in research by identifying how experienced researchers generate ideas and connect with research advisors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA sequential mixed-methods approach was employed, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative surveys. The study focused on the 2023 cohort of third-year medical students, who were required to complete a research proposal as part of their graduation requirements. Quantitative data were analyzed using t-tests and Chi-square tests to assess associations. Additionally, structured interviews were conducted to provide deeper qualitative insights.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe most important factor in initiating research ideas was discussing with faculty staff specializing in the area of interest (91.5%), followed by self-literature review (53.2%), and attending research seminars (46.8%). For successive research projects, attending research seminars became less important (21.9%). Research advisors were primarily found through research seminars (38.1%) and by directly asking class lecturers (20.3%). First research advisors were often class professors (23.4%), while successive research advisors were obtained through other professors' recommendations (28.1%). The interview delved deeper into each participant\u0026rsquo;s motivations for pursuing research, uncovering their perspectives on how effectively the curriculum facilitated professor matching and their personal experiences with research advisors. Additionally, while many participants expressed a personal interest in research, the majority opposed the idea of making research a mandatory requirement in medical school.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscussion with faculty staff, personal literature review, and research seminars are crucial in sparking research ideas among medical students. However, research seminars become less relevant for generating ideas after students complete their first research project. Research seminars still play a significant role in helping students find research advisors. Medical schools aiming to promote research among students should support these activities.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Fostering Research Engagement and Ideation: Insights from Medical Students in Thailand","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-01-14 16:33:34","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5784741/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"8057c9dc-73bc-457f-bce0-1f99d20de27c","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 14th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-05-26T10:24:02+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-01-14 16:33:34","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5784741","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5784741","identity":"rs-5784741","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}