Introduction
According to the Accreditation Review Commission on Education for the Physician Assistant (ARC-PA, 2025), evidence-based medicine instruction must include framing research questions, interpreting biostatistical methods, evaluating the limits of medical research, evaluating sampling methods, and applying evidence to patient care. Clinicians must be able to identify, critically appraise, and apply scientific evidence to inform clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes. Developing research literacy during professional training supports lifelong learning and ensures clinicians remain capable of delivering evidence-informed care (Maggio et al., 2021).
Despite its importance, integrating research training into PA curricula remains challenging. PA programs are dense, with extensive didactic and clinical requirements that limit opportunities for in-depth research engagement. Many programs introduce EBP concepts through lectures or literature review assignments but provide fewer opportunities for students to actively participate in the research process or disseminate scholarly work (Ilic & Maloney, 2022). Experiential learning approaches, in which learners engage directly in research activities, have been shown to be more effective in developing research competencies and reinforcing EBP principles (Young et al., 2022).
Scaffolded learning models provide a structured approach to addressing these challenges. Scaffolded instruction introduces complex competencies progressively, allowing learners to build on foundational knowledge through increasingly advanced tasks. In research education, this approach enables learners to move from basic skills such as literature searching to more complex activities such as research design, data collection, and scholarly dissemination (Boman & Jhun, 2025; Triola & Burk-Rafel, 2023).
Methods
Participants
Participants included all Cohort 2025 students enrolled in the clinical phase of the West Coast University Texas PA program who completed the four-course EBP and capstone sequence.
Curriculum Design
The scaffolded curriculum consisted of four sequential courses: Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM), Masters Project I (Research Development), Masters Project II (Research Implementation), and Capstone Project III (Research Dissemination). The curriculum was intentionally structured to support progressive development of research competencies in small groups.
-
In the EBM course, learners developed foundational competencies in literature searching, critical appraisal, and research question formulation.
-
In Masters Project I, learners transitioned to research design, working closely with faculty capstone mentors in small groups to refine research questions, develop methodologies, construct data collection tools, and complete IRB training and submission.
-
In Masters Project II, learners implemented their research proposals. They continued working with faculty mentors while also collaborating with site mentors from community partner organizations, applying research methods in real-world settings.
-
In Capstone Project III, learners focused on data analysis, interpretation, and dissemination, including poster development, symposium presentation, and abstract preparation.
Learning Activities and Instructional Supports
Instruction included literature review development, study design, IRB preparation, data collection, analysis, and dissemination. Learners were supported by faculty instructors and faculty mentorship, librarians, writing center resources, and community partner organizations that provided real-world research questions.
Community Partnerships
During the implementation phase, learners collaborated with 10 community partner organizations addressing clinical, educational, and system-level healthcare needs. These partnerships enabled learners to apply EBP principles in authentic settings while contributing to meaningful outcomes.
Results
In the 2025 cohort, 45 of 46 (97.8%) successfully completed their Master’s research project, demonstrating -the feasibility of a scaffolded research model integrated throughout the curriculum. Students were organized into 11 research groups, each collaborating with a faculty mentor and a community partner to address clinically relevant healthcare questions.
The 11 student groups partnered with 10 community – organizations across the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex. Community partner settings included free medical clinics, dermatology clinics, geriatric centers, nephrology clinics, rehabilitation and wellness organizations, community recreation and environmental education centers, and physician assistant educational settings. These partnerships allowed students to engage in authentic clinical and community-based research while addressing identified organizational needs.
Collectively, the student groups investigated a diverse range of healthcare topics, including hypertension and diabetes education among underserved populations; self-perception in cosmetic dermatology; medication adherence in chronic kidney disease, outcomes following AI implementation for geriatric patients; patient education following acquired brain injury, environmental exposure and mental well-being in children; children with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, Caregiver training for Parkinson’s conditions; interest in AI education for physician assistant students; and other quality improvement and educational initiatives designed to improve patient care and health outcomes. These projects reflected a broad spectrum of evidence-based clinical, education, and community health priorities.
All 11 research groups developed scholarly posters and presented their findings during the program’s annual Master’s Project Symposium. The symposium was attended by physician assistant faculty, students, clinical and community partners, university leadership, and invited guests, providing learners with an opportunity to disseminate their work to a diverse professional audience while strengthening their scientific communication skills.
In addition to poster presentations, five student groups presented their findings at the West Coast Academic Conference and five presented at the Texas Academy of Physician Assistant Annual Conference. In addition, the students prepared structured scholarly abstracts for publication. At the time of this manuscript, four abstracts have been accepted for publication, demonstrating early scholarly dissemination beyond the institutional level.
Although several projects encountered implementation challenge including slower-than-anticipated participant recruitment, limited sample sizes, and variability in data collection across community site, students successfully completed each phase of the research process. For example, one group obtained data from only a single participant due to recruitment limitations; however, the learners still gained valuable experience in project planning, IRB preparation, stakeholder collaboration, data collection, analysis, and scholarly dissemination. These experiences reinforced that successful research education extends beyond study outcomes and includes the development of critical inquiry, problem-solving, adaptability, and evidence-based practice skills.
Conclusion
The findings of this study demonstrate that a scaffolded evidence-based practice (EBP) curriculum is both feasible and effective within a rigorous physician assistant (PA) program. High rates of project completion (45 of 46 learners), engagement with 10 community partners, successful dissemination through 11 scholarly posters at a program-level symposium along with four peer-reviewed published student abstracts, highlight the practicality of integrating research training into a condensed curriculum. These outcomes support prior literature indicating that experiential learning approaches enhance the development of EBP competencies and promote meaningful engagement with clinical application (Ilic & Maloney, 2022; Young et al., 2022).
A central strength of this curriculum is the intentional integration of mentorship across all phases of the research process. Students self-selected into collaborative research groups of four to six members based on shared interests and complementary skills. Each group then ranked its preferred community partner sites, and placements were assigned based on student preferences and site availability. Once matched with a community partner, each group was paired with a faculty mentor who provided guidance throughout all phases of the research process. A central strength of this curriculum is the intentional integration of mentorship across each stage of project development, from topic refinement and research design to implementation, data analysis, and scholarly dissemination.
As learners progress into the implementation phase, site mentors from community partner organizations play a critical role in translating academic research into real-world applications. These mentors provide access to clinical populations, contextualize research within practice settings, and reinforce the relevance of EBP to patient care and system-level outcomes. The collaboration between faculty and site mentors creates a supportive, practice-oriented learning environment that bridges theory and application.
This dual-mentorship model reflects principles of scaffolded learning, where competencies are developed progressively through guided support and increasing independence (Triola & Burk-Rafel, 2023). By the dissemination phase, learners demonstrate increased confidence in data analysis, interpretation, and scholarly communication. Presenting research findings and preparing abstracts further supports professional identity formation and readiness for evidence-informed practice.
Importantly, this curriculum aligns with ARC-PA Standard B2.13, emphasizing the integration of evidence-based practice into clinical decision-making. Through structured progression and experiential learning, learners develop competencies in critical appraisal, research application, and scholarly dissemination—skills essential for modern healthcare practice. The integration of community-based research further strengthens the curriculum by connecting academic learning with real-world healthcare challenges. This approach enhances engagement and reinforces the importance of research in improving patient outcomes and healthcare systems. See Table 1.
Despite these strengths, some limitations were present. Due to the small sample sizes, the analyses had limited statistical power, and multivariate analyses were not feasible. Additionally, variability in community partner engagement may have influenced the consistency of learner experiences. Future research should examine the long-term impacts of the scaffolded experience on clinical practice, continued scholarly activity, and contributions to evidence-based care.
Overall, this scaffolded curriculum provides a replicable model for integrating research training into PA education. The combination of structured progression, faculty mentorship, site-based learning, and dissemination opportunities prepares learners to become competent, reflective, and evidence-informed clinicians.