Student Scholarly Research Programs in US Medical Schools: Cross-sectional Web Audit

BackgroundParticipating in research during medical school is supported by institutional programs and may influence subsequent professional development. ObjectiveWe aimed to describe the current status and heterogeneity of scholarly research programs for medical students in the United States, including expectations, support, and key structural features. MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional web audit of official webpages for all accredited US MD- and DO-granting medical schools (search performed September 2024 to January 2025). Extracted variables included participation requirements, mentorship, timing and duration (overall and dedicated research time), expected scholarly outputs, funding sources, stipend information, and stated program goals. We compared Carnegie tier R1 (Very high research activity) versus other institutions, QS Top-50 versus other institutions, and MD versus DO schools using {chi}2/Fisher exact tests for 2x2 tables and exact trend or Freeman-Halton tests for multicategory variables. ResultsPrograms were identified for all 202 institutions. Funding was explicitly mentioned by 61.9% (125/202) of programs, 27.0% (51/189) were compulsory, 98.9% (188/190) reported faculty mentorship, and 91.0% (171/188) were exclusive for medical students. Program duration, dedicated time, expected outcomes, stipend reporting, funding sources, and stated goals varied widely. Carnegie R1 institutions had longer duration (P=.002) and tended to report external funding more often than other institutions (25/104, 24.0% vs 9/98, 9.2%; OR 3.13, 95% CI 1.38-7.10; P=.008). QS Top-50 institutions were more likely to require compulsory participation than other institutions (11/19, 57.9% vs 40/170, 23.5%; OR 4.47, 95% CI 1.68-11.87; P=.003). No significant differences were observed between MD and DO programs across most measured characteristics. ConclusionsScholarly research programs for medical students are ubiquitous across US medical schools but heterogeneous in structure, expectations, and support. Research-intensive and top-ranked institutions may have more external funding and sometimes may put together longer and compulsory programs Further evaluation of student experiences and outcomes is warranted.