Immediate and Longitudinal Outcomes of a National Hands‐On Basic Research Course in Rhinology

Objectives Hands‐on basic research training opportunities for early‐career clinicians are limited, particularly in surgical specialties such as rhinology. To address this gap, the Japanese Rhinologic Society organized a short‐term society‐led hands‐on basic research course. Methods This mixed‐methods program evaluation analyzed postcourse and long‐term follow‐up questionnaire surveys administered to course participants. The immediate postcourse survey assessed satisfaction, perceived educational value, and motivation using Likert‐scale items. A long‐term follow‐up survey evaluated sustained research engagement, perceived utility of the course, and subsequent academic outcomes, including conference presentations, manuscript preparation, collaborative research, and grant applications. Results Immediately after the course, 98.4% of participants rated the educational content as highly satisfactory, and 96.8% reported obtaining useful insights applicable to future research. Most participants (93.5%) indicated that the course should be continued, and 71.0% expressed willingness to participate again. At long‐term follow‐up, 62.9% of respondents were actively engaged in basic research either as team members (40.7%) or as primary investigators (22.2%). The most frequently cited long‐term benefits were networking with instructors and peers (74.1%) and increased research motivation (63.0%). Academic outputs following course participation included conference presentations (37.0%), manuscript preparation or submission (33.3%), initiation of new research projects or collaborations (18.5%), and grant applications or funding acquisition (14.8%). Conclusions A short‐term, society‐led hands‐on basic research course was associated with sustained research engagement and tangible academic outcomes. Such programs may play an important role in fostering the development of clinician–scientists and strengthening research capacity in rhinology. Level of Evidence 5.