medRxiv (Medicine)
2026-06-12
DOI: HASH:155288d70a68326f088edbb51bfd2dc9
Background: Early clinical exposure and student participation in research are important components of medical training. They may support learning motivation, evidence literacy, and self-directed learning. In many programmes, however, clinical training and research training remain separated. Few studies have explained, within a real teaching team, how learners turn clinical phenomena into researchable questions and how research participation can reshape their clinical understanding. Early Clinical and Research Training (ECART) is a clinical-research integration approach developed by an orthopaedic team at the Second Hospital of Shandong University. Methods: We conducted a theory-informed, interpretivist qualitative single-case study. The case was an orthopaedic clinical-research team at the Second Hospital of Shandong University. Participants included medical undergraduates, academic degree graduate students, professional degree graduate students, clinical teachers, and research platform leads. We used purposive sampling with maximum variation. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and de-identified teaching documents. Data were analysed using the framework method and were interpreted with a Context-Activity-Mechanism-Outcome (CAMO) logic. Results: The analysis showed that ECART was not simply early entry into the clinic or early entry into the laboratory. It was a team-based learning process centred on real medical problems. Four themes were identified. First, early clinical exposure helped learners make real problems visible and nameable, rather than merely increasing exposure. Second, clinical-research connection followed different pathways. Professional degree graduate students often started from clinical uncertainties in residency training and case management, and moved toward evidence-informed small projects. Academic degree graduate students often started from literature gaps, experimental findings, and mechanistic hypotheses, and then used clinical feedback to calibrate meaning. Third, research training, through literature reading, group meetings, experimental design, data review, and mentor questioning, helped learners move from completing tasks to explaining problems. Fourth, sustained ECART depended on a tiered team ecology formed by clinical teachers, research mentors, research platforms, and senior peers. Based on these findings, we refined the ECART programme theory: real medical problems are translated through explanation, searching, experimentalisation, and feedback-based reinterpretation into research questions that learners can understand, discuss, and test. This process supports problem formation, evidence awareness, mechanistic reasoning, translational judgement, and career clarification. Conclusion: ECART is best understood as a clinical-research integrated learning ecology that emerges from real team practice, rather than as a fixed standardised course. Its educational value lies in a recurring cycle of real problems, research translation, multi-source feedback, and clinical reinterpretation. This framework may inform the design, evaluation, and contextual adaptation of clinical-research integration pathways in medical education.