Abstract / Summary
Abstract Background Medical schools that use multiple admission pathways may admit students with varying research-related experiences and opportunities. We examined the association between admission pathway and documented extracurricular research participation during medical training and explored stakeholder perspectives to contextualize participation and non-participation. Methods We conducted a single-institution sequential explanatory mixed-methods study at a Thai medical school. Institutional records from 1,021 students admitted during 2017–2022 through portfolio-based (TCAS1) or examination-based (TCAS3) pathways were analyzed. The quantitative outcome was at least one eligible extracurricular research grant, conference abstract presentation, or scholarly publication recorded from entry until graduation or 30 September 2023, whichever occurred first. Mandatory curricular and concurrent-degree research were excluded. Logistic regression comprised a minimally adjusted model of pathway and cohort, a primary model additionally adjusted for selected pre-admission characteristics, and paired complete-case models with and without pre-university grade point average (GPA). For qualitative sampling, the same eligibility criteria were applied to records through 30 September 2024. Interviews with 24 students or graduates, three faculty advisors, and three research-support committee members were analyzed thematically and integrated with quantitative findings. Results Overall, 103/1,021 students (10.1%) had documented participation: 52/246 TCAS1 students (21.1%) and 51/775 TCAS3 students (6.6%). In the primary adjusted model, TCAS1 admission was associated with documented participation (adjusted odds ratio 9.19, 95% confidence interval 4.96–17.03). Among 854 students with available pre-university GPA, the pathway estimate was 11.25 (5.36–23.63) before and 10.63 (5.02–22.51) after GPA adjustment. The GPA estimate was imprecise and not statistically significant. Interview accounts highlighted prior exposure and research self-efficacy, mentoring and visible entry routes, competing priorities, academic pressure, and unclear pathways. Contrasting cases indicated that prior exposure was neither necessary nor sufficient for participation. Conclusions Admission pathway was associated with documented extracurricular research participation but should not be interpreted as causal or as a proxy for student potential. The association may partly reflect different research-related starting conditions, while post-admission opportunities and constraints were also relevant. Research opportunities should be visible and accessible across admission groups while respecting diverse student priorities.