Sir,

In the past decade there has been an increasing emphasis on trainee-led research collaborations across different specialties in the UK.1, 2 Recently, the Royal College of Ophthalmologists had positively expressed its support on the establishment of 15 local ophthalmic trainee research networks (TRNs) across England, including the North East of England (NEE), that are aligned geographically to the NIHR clinical research networks, with an aim of reinforcing the research climate amongst ophthalmology trainees. To date, there have been limited studies evaluating trainees’ views and expectations of TRN and none has been done within ophthalmology.3, 4

In 2017, the ophthalmology trainees in the NEE set up a research collaborative network, named the North East Trainee Research in Ophthalmology Network (NETRiON). During the set up, several important questions arose. These included the following: (a) whether trainees could lead research independently and the role of consultant input; (b) whether the TRN could (and how) increase trainees’ participation in research; (c) authorship guidelines within the context of TRN; and (d) potential strategies that could be employed to increase trainees’ research participation in TRN. In order to address the above-mentioned questions, a region-wide questionnaire-based survey was designed and sent to all 29 ophthalmic trainees in the NEE.

A high response rate of 90% (26 out of 29) was received. The number of peer-reviewed publications per trainee (mean: 3.8, range: 0–20) was significantly influenced by the trainee’s level (P=0.005), but not by the age, gender, year of graduation and additional academic degree. The majority of trainees strongly agreed/agreed (SA/A) that: (1) a TRN would increase their participation in research (81%), (2) clear authorship guidelines would increase trainees’ participation (81%), and (3) consultant supervision was essential (77%; Figure 1). Trainees expressed that TRN could facilitate discussion/exchange of research ideas, create a supportive and collaborative environment, and help increase motivation amongst the trainees. Common suggestions for improving trainees’ participation in TRN included provision of research support/training (19%) and evidence of research output (15%) from the network (Table 1).

Figure 1
figure 1

The summary of trainees’ views and expectations of a trainee-led research network in the North East of England. Q1: I feel that a clear authorship is important in increasing trainees’ participation in TRN. Q2: I feel that the authorship can be decided later by the lead author of the project based on the output of the trainees. Q3: I feel that the authorship should not be changed after the project has been started. Q4: I feel that there should always be a supervising consultant for every project in TRN for quality assurance purpose. Q5: I feel that TRN will help increase my opportunity in participating in research. Q6: I feel that TRN will help increase the amount of my international/national presentation. Q7: I feel that TRN will help increase my publication output. Q8: I feel that TRN will help improve research knowledge/skills (e.g. literature review/search, statistical analysis, manuscript preparation). Q9: I feel that TRN will help increase the quality of the study (e.g. larger number, multi-centered study). SA, strongly agree; A, agree; N, neutral; D, disagree; SD, strongly disagree.

Full size image
Table 1 Free-text comments on how to increase trainees’ participation in a trainee research network (TRN)
Full size table

On the basis of these findings, we encourage more experienced trainees to take on the study lead role under an experienced consultant’s supervision. He/she will then recruit interested junior trainees, delegate specific research tasks to each trainee, and provide required support. This will help senior trainees to develop the mentoring skills before they become a consultant and help the junior trainees to acquire the required research skills. A multifaceted research framework integrated with experienced academic faculty was shown to enhance trainees’ research participation and scholarly output.5 In terms of authorship guideline, the members of NETRiON agreed that some authors, who were more significantly involved in the study, should be named in the publication and all other trainees who have contributed to the data set would be listed as collaborators.

Overall, there was a strong positive attitude amongst the ophthalmology trainees towards the establishment of TRN. Clear authorship guidelines, good supervision, provision of research training and evidence of research output generated from the network can help promote a sustainable trainee-led research network. We hope that future collaborations with other TRNs will occur.