(205) Developing Competent Residents with Scholarly Writing Skills: Does Past Writing Experience Matter?

Objective : To evaluate the quality of scientific writing from research presented at the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) Midyear and determine any differences when residents had previous experience.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study evaluated 3,289 abstracts from 15 pharmacy residency conference regions, excluding those missing backgrounds or methods. Experienced writers were defined as residents who presented a poster as a 4th-year professional student or as an early resident trainee. Non-experienced writers were defined as those who did not have a previous presentation at Midyear. Using a scoring rubric, the primary outcome was to categorize scientific abstract writing with a score of < 50% as developing or a score of ≥50% deemed competent. Using an extended scoring rubric, the secondary outcome assessed whether the inclusion of results indicated a competent or developing writer, defined as extended developing or extended competent. A machine learning algorithm was utilized to predict a more accurate cutoff score in the extended rubric. Data was analyzed using the STATA program.

Results: Of 3,264 abstracts included, 41% of residents were experienced writers, and 59% were non-experienced writers, with a mean score of 23.3 ± 4.8 and 23.4 ± 5.1, respectively (p=.676). Of the experienced writers, 87.5% were considered competent compared to 87.2% of non-experienced writers (p=.781). Further analysis using the extended scoring rubric showed that 50% of experienced abstract writers were extended competent compared to 46% of non-experienced abstract writers (p=.007).

Conclusions: Residents with previous abstract writing experience may produce higher-quality writing. A standardized scoring rubric could be a helpful tool for students and residents when writing abstracts to improve the quality of writing.