RESUMEN

Background: The growing recognition of the need to incorporate scientific discoveries into healthcare decisions underscores an urgency for a robust physician-scientist workforce to advance translational research. Despite the correlation between medical students' research engagement and their academic productivity and success, significant gaps remain in the scientific workforce exacerbated by the "leaky pipeline" phenomenon from medical school to academic medicine, where potential physician-scientists veer away from research careers.The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a structured mentored research program for enhancing medical students' research competencies and sustaining their interest in research careers, thereby potentially enhancing the physician-scientist workforce. Methods: The Medical Student Research Program (MSRP) implemented at the University of California, Irvine (UCI) was designed to provide comprehensive research training and support to medical students through a series of structured lectures, mentorship by dedicated faculty, and administrative support for research activities. Students were surveyed upon enrollment and one year later to assess the change in research competencies from baseline to follow-up (paired samples t-test), students' intent to use research in clinical practice (paired samples t-test), and their intent to conduct research in the future (McNemar's test and McNemar Bowker test). Results: Preliminary evaluations indicated that the MSRP enhanced students' research competencies and has the potential to enhance medical students' research skills. However, similar to national trends, there was a decrease in students' intentions to engage with research in their future clinical career. Conclusions: Our preliminary findings demonstrate MSRP students' enhanced research competencies during the first year of the program. However, the decline in students' intentions to engage in future research highlights the need for continued innovation in research training programs to sustain future intent to conduct research, in turn helping to address the "leaky pipeline" in the physician-scientist workforce. Future studies should focus on mid and long-term outcomes to fully assess research program impact on the physician-scientist pipeline and on integrating such programs more broadly into medical education.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The authors examined trends of individual career development awards from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to psychiatry faculty, especially physicians, in comparison to other departments. METHODS: Data were obtained on 33,392 career development awards from 2013 to 2022. We examined the number of awards each year averaged for 46 non-psychiatry departments, and for departments of psychiatry, the number of awards to all faculty, physicians, and physicians without a PhD. Linear regressions determined whether number of career development awards increased with time and if estimated slopes differed between faculty in non-psychiatry departments and other groups. RESULTS: In departments of psychiatry, 534 faculty received an NIH individual career development award during the 10-year period (534/33,392 or 1.6%), with 118 (22%) to physicians. The number of awards increased significantly over time for other departments and departments of psychiatry (estimated slopes of 3.05 and 2.38, respectively) and did not differ from one another. However, the number of awards to physicians and physicians without a PhD in departments of psychiatry (estimated slopes of 0.51 and - 0.07, respectively) have not increased. This lack of growth in awards for physicians and physicians without a PhD in departments of psychiatry differed significantly in comparison with the increase shown in awards to other departments over time (both p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The number of NIH career development awards has increased NIH-wide, and for non-physician faculty but not for physicians in departments of psychiatry. These trends raise concerns for the future of psychiatrists in academic research.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Despite the impact of physician-scientists on scientific discovery and translational medicine, several reports have signalled their declining workforce, reduced funding, and insufficient protected research time. Given the paucity of outcome data on Canadian MD/PhD programs, this study presents a national portrait of the sociodemographic characteristics, training trajectories, productivity, and satisfaction in trainees and alumni from Canadian MD/PhD and MD/MSc programs. METHODS: Quantitative data were collected in a national survey launched in 2021. Respondents included 74 MD/PhD alumni and 121 trainees across 12 Canadian MD/PhD and MD/MSc programs. RESULTS: Among MD/PhD alumni, 51% were independent practitioners/researchers while others underwent residency training. Most trainees (88%) were in MD/PhD programs. Significantly more alumni identified as men than did trainees. Significantly more alumni conducted clinical and health services research, while more trainees conducted basic science research. Average time to MD/PhD completion was 8 years, with no correlation to subsequent research outcomes. Self-reported research productivity was highest during MD/PhD training. Concerning training trajectories, most alumni completed residency, pursued additional training, and practised in Canada. Finally, regression models showed that trainees and alumni were satisfied with programs, with significant moderators in trainee models. CONCLUSION: Survey findings showed Canadian MD/PhD and MD/MSc programs recruit more diverse cohorts of trainees than before, provide productive research years, and graduate alumni who pursue training and academic employment in Canada. Both alumni and trainees are largely satisfied with these training programs. The need to collect in-depth longitudinal data on Canadian MD/PhD graduates to monitor diversity and success metrics is discussed.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

EDUCATIONAL CHALLENGE: As technological advancements challenge the current roles healthcare workers fill, curiosity and lifelong learning are becoming increasingly important. However, descriptions of specific curricular interventions that successfully develop these attitudes and skills remain limited. PROPOSED SOLUTION: We aimed to promote curiosity and advance practical application of evidenced-based medicine through a longitudinal, gamified learning activity within a longitudinal integrated clerkship (LIC). Thirty-seven students across two inquiry-themed LICs based at a university hospital and a community-based integrated healthcare delivery system used BINGO cards containing various assignments designed to develop the skill of asking and answering clinical questions. Assignments included: engaging experts, using evidence-based medical resources, attending education events, utilizing medical library resources, and Phone-a-Scientist. Students shared their experiences in a group setting and wrote a reflection for each assignment that was qualitatively analyzed to determine the perceived educational outcomes according to the Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model. LESSONS LEARNED: Results suggest that Inquiry BINGO fosters curiosity and builds skill in applied evidenced-based medicine early in clinical training. Most assignments prompted students to engage in opportunities they might not have otherwise explored. All but three students reported a change in behavior as a result of the assignment and 57% reported positive clinical or research results. NEXT STEPS: Future iterations of this activity should be evaluated by obtaining patient and/or preceptor feedback as well as longitudinal evaluations of student behavior to ensure higher level educational outcomes are being met.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Physician-scientists play a crucial role in advancing biomedical sciences. Proportionally fewer physicians are actively engaged in scientific pursuits, attributed to attrition in the training and retention pipeline. This national study evaluated the ongoing and longer-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on stress levels, research productivity, and optimism for physician-scientists at all levels of training. METHODS: A multi-institutional cross-sectional survey of medical students, graduate students, and residents/fellows/junior faculty (RFJF) was conducted from April to August 2021 to assess the impact of COVID-19 on individual stress, productivity, and optimism. Multivariate regression analyses were performed to identify associated variables and unsupervised variable clustering techniques were employed to identify highly correlated responses. RESULTS: A total 677 respondents completed the survey, representing different stages of physician-scientist training. Respondents report high levels of stress (medical students: 85%, graduate students: 63%, RFJF: 85%) attributed to impaired productivity concerns, concern about health of family and friends, impact on personal health and impairment in training or career development. Many cited impaired productivity (medical students: 65% graduate students: 79%, RFJF: 78%) associated with pandemic impacts on training, labs closures and loss of facility/resource access, and social isolation. Optimism levels were low (medical students: 37%, graduate students: 38% and RFJF: 39%) with females less likely to be optimistic and more likely to report concerns of long-term effects of COVID-19. Optimism about the future was correlated with not worrying about the long-term effects of COVID-19. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, all respondents reported increased prioritization of time with family/friends (67%) and personal health (62%) over career (25%) and research (24%). CONCLUSIONS: This national survey highlights the significant and protracted impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on stress levels, productivity, and optimism among physician-scientists and trainees. These findings underscore the urgent need for tailored support, including mental health, academic, and career development assistance for this biomedical workforce.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Physician-scientists are important drivers of research, in both knowledge acquisition and research translation. In Australia, many newly qualified physicians and advanced physician trainees enrol in PhD studies, with a view to training as physician-scientists. However, data on perceived challenges and ways to support them are limited. METHODS: This single-centre study surveyed trainee physician-scientists undertaking PhD studies within the Monash University Department of Medicine in 2020. Following discussions with PhD students and a qualitative written questionnaire, trainee physician-scientists were invited to complete a quantitative survey that aimed to identify current and future career challenges and determine the type of enrichment and support mechanisms they value most and would most likely use. RESULTS: From 45 eligible participants, 25 responses were received (76% female). Participants identified multiple substantial challenges (median of 6) during their candidature relating to their project, changes in roles and their personal lives. They also envisaged future challenges post-PhD in establishing themselves as an independent investigator, further changes in their identity and their personal lives. Of potential support mechanisms during their candidature, a mentoring program was the most favoured, with an online discussion forum being the least popular. CONCLUSIONS: Trainee physician-scientists report multiple challenges during their PhD candidature and envisage significant challenges in establishing their research independence after PhD completion. They valued several potential support mechanisms, particularly a mentoring program. Australian universities and their associated academic health services should consider establishing programs to support trainee physician-scientists.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: Combined clinical and research training is common in residency programs outside emergency medicine (EM), and these pathways are particularly valuable for combined MD/PhD graduates planning to pursue a career as a physician-scientist. However, EM departments may not know what resources to provide these trainees during residency to create research-focused, productive, future faculty, and trainees may not know which programs support their goal of becoming a physician-scientist in EM. The objective of this study was to describe research training and resources available to MD/PhD graduates in EM residency training with a focus on dedicated research pathways. Methods: This study was a cross-sectional inventory conducted through an electronic survey of EM residency program directors. We sought to identify dedicated MD/PhD research training pathways, with a focus on both resources and training priorities. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize survey responses. Results: We collected 192 survey responses (69.6% response rate). Among respondents, 41 programs (21.4%) offered a research pathway/track, 52 (27.4%) offered a research fellowship, 22 (11.5%) offered both a residency research pathway/track and a research fellowship, and two (1.0%) offered a dedicated EM physician-scientist training pathway. Most programs considered research a priority and were enthusiastic about interviewing applicants planning a research career, but recruitment of physician-scientist applicants was not generally prioritized. Conclusions: Some EM residency programs offer combined clinical and mentored research training for prospective physician-scientists, and nearly all residency programs considered research important. Future work will focus on improving the EM physician-scientist pipeline by optimizing pathways available to trainees during residency and fellowship.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Infectious diseases (ID) research is vital for global public health, typically led by physician-scientists. This Perspective addresses challenges in the ID workforce and suggests solutions. Physician-scientists have made key discoveries that have significantly impacted human health. The importance of ID research in understanding diseases, leading to treatments and vaccines, is emphasized, along with the need to address persistent and new infections, antimicrobial resistance, and threats like HIV and influenza. The paper analyzes the physician-scientist workforce's struggles, including funding, training, and research-practice integration gaps. We suggest increased funding, better training, and mentorship, more collaborative and interdisciplinary research, and improved recognition systems. The article stresses the urgency of supporting physician-scientists in ID, advocating for proactive prevention and preparedness, and calls for immediate action to enhance ID research and care.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The medical field is facing a physician-scientist shortage, threatening future medical research and development. Medical institutions can contribute to developing physician-scientists by stimulating students' involvement in research. In this study, a medical undergraduate teaching module to develop research skills and encourage interest in research was held in Chongqing, China. Undergraduate medical students at Chongqing Medical University completed research skills training. Before and after the training, an online, anonymous, self-reported questionnaire was administered. The self-reported questionnaire investigated students' demographic characteristics, students' perception of attitudes toward conducting research, research skills (e.g., identifying and utilizing information, critical appraisal of literature, paper writing, and understanding of research), and feedback on scientific research training. The module was implemented with 25 students from July 2019 to October 2019, and 96.0% (N = 24) of participants responded to the questionnaire both prior to and after the training. In the evaluation of research skills, results showed that use of appropriate tools for research (Z = -3.340, p < 0.01), students' ability to undertake a focused literature search (Z = -3.40, p < 0.01), identifying and utilizing information (Z = -3.34, p < 0.01), and paper-writing skills (Z = -3.49, p < 0.01) were significantly improved after the undergraduates participated in the scientific research training. A qualitative analysis of the feedback showed that students found that the training helped to enhance their knowledge, improve their study scores, and motivate them to conduct research in the future. Early scientific research ability training strengthened the research skills of medical undergraduates and motivated them to pursue research.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Purpose: Physician-scientists play a crucial role in advancing biomedical sciences. Proportionally fewer physicians are actively engaged in scientific pursuits, attributed to attrition in the training and retention pipeline. This national study evaluated the ongoing and longer-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on research productivity for physician-scientists at all levels of training. Methods: A survey of medical students, graduate students, and residents/fellows/junior faculty (RFJF) was conducted from April to August 2021 to assess the impact of COVID-19 on individual stress, productivity, and optimism. Multivariate regression analyses were performed to identify associated variables and unsupervised variable clustering techniques were employed to identify highly correlated responses. Results: A total 677 respondents completed the survey, representing different stages of physician-scientist training. Respondents report high levels of stress (medical students: 85%, graduate students: 63%, RFJF: 85%) attributed to impaired productivity concerns, concern about health of family and friends, impact on personal health and impairment in training or career development. Many cited impaired productivity (medical students: 65% graduate students: 79%, RFJF: 78%) associated with pandemic impacts on training, labs closures and loss of facility/resource access, and social isolation. Optimism levels were low (medical students: 37%, graduate students: 38% and RFJF: 39%) with females less likely to be optimistic and more likely to report concerns of long-term effects of COVID-19. Optimism about the future was correlated with not worrying about the long-term effects of COVID-19. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, all respondents reported increased prioritization of time with family/friends (67%) and personal health (62%) over career (25%) and research (24%). Conclusions: This national survey highlights the significant and protracted impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on stress levels, productivity, and optimism among physician-scientists and trainees. These findings underscore the urgent need for tailored support, including mental health, academic, and career development assistance for this biomedical workforce.

RESUMEN

The growing complexities of clinical medicine and biomedical research have clouded the career path for physician-scientists. In this perspective piece, we address one of the most opaque career stage transitions along the physician-scientist career path, the transition from medical school to research-focused internal medicine residency programs, or physician-scientist training programs (PSTPs). We present the perspectives of medical scientist training program (MSTP) and PSTP directors on critical features of PSTPs that can help trainees proactively align their clinical and scientific training for successful career development. We aim to provide both trainees and MSTP directors with a conceptual framework to better understand and navigate PSTPs. We also offer interview-specific questions to help trainees gather data and make informed decisions in choosing a residency program that best supports their career.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The journey towards becoming a physician scientist is a long, arduous, and uncertain journey. Few medical students pursue a career as a physician scientist. Even those that do, the path towards maintaining a robust research career and clinical training can be difficult given the personal and social pressures to focus solely on research or clinical work. Despite the long history of science and medicine, there is question concerning the role that physician scientist in modern medicine. As a recent physician scientist graduate, physician scientists are greatly needed in the medical profession. The ability to overlap science, medicine, and the humanities together is an essential part of the producing a well-rounded and effective physician for a rapidly changing profession and world. Through my journey as a physician scientist in training, the lessons I've learned through my training in both the basic science and clinical portions can be helpful for medical students traversing both sides of the divide.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Replenishing the physician-scientist workforce constitutes a central mission of medical education, but the loss of qualified trainees to non-academic positions remains an ongoing threat. Among the barriers facing physician-scientists today is the game-like model of U.S. medical residency matching through the National Research Matching Program (NRPM), which applies several assumptions regarding the comparability of applicant qualifications, cohort size, and the institutional breadth of applicants' training needs. METHODS: The current report therefore summarizes the survey-based views and experiences of physician-scientist trainees obtained following the 2021-2022 application cycle for research-oriented residency programs, or physician-scientist training programs (PSTPs). From among this small cohort of applicants, we obtained survey-based feedback of 27 PSTP applicants across 17 U.S. medical universities, among whom 85% (23/27) matched into a PSTP. RESULTS: Among these PSTP applicants, 25/27 (93%) recognized "scientific community" as the most important feature of a postgraduate training program, with applicants identifying as female placing a higher value on the program's infrastructure of personal and/or family support. Most (18/27) respondents found "waiting for interviews" as the most stressful phase of their application cycle, and roughly half of all respondents encountered at least one NRMP policy violation through post-interview communication. Specifically, 93% (25/27) respondents were contacted by at least one PSTP following interviews, and 1/3 of them admitted to feeling pressured into sharing their ranking preferences. CONCLUSION: We highlight many previously unrecognized priorities among applicants to PSTPs, which include fostering community among its trainees and reinforcing structured mentoring. We uncover an inconsistency among PSTPs regarding the post-interview process, which represents an opportunity to better support applicants seeking to gauge programs according to their clinical, scientific, and academic interests as physician-scientists, while still adhering to NRMP policies.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Institutional Development Award (IDeA) programs build research infrastructure in regions with historically low access to NIH funds. The Mentored Research Development Award (MRDA), a professional development program embedded in our IDeA-funded center, provides junior investigators with mentorship and effort offset to write a grant. We evaluated outcomes from the first eight years (2013-2021; N = 55) using administrative records, publicly available data, and a self-report survey (n = 46, 84% response rate). Fifteen MRDA recipients (27%) went on to receive NIH funding. Providing just-in-time grant-writing support may launch early career clinician-scientists in an IDeA state context.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: National Institutes of Health funding to address basic reproductive health for common female conditions remains disproportionately low, in part because of low success rates of grant applications by obstetrician-gynecologists. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the scholarly productivity of individuals supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Women's Reproductive Health Research K12 career development award, created to advance careers of obstetrician-gynecologist physician-scientists. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a cohort study of individuals who completed at least 2 years of Women's Reproductive Health Research training by June 30, 2015, and had at least 5-year follow-up. Earliest training start date was December 1, 1998. Primary outcomes from public data sources (National Institutes of Health RePORTER, PubMed, iCite) were (1) number of total and R01 National Institutes of Health grants as principal investigator; (2) numbers of total and first and last author publications; and (3) median and highest publication impact factor measured by the relative citation ratio. Secondary outcomes from an email survey subcohort were total number of research grants, federally funded grants, and number of National Institutes of Health grants as coinvestigator; institutional promotions and academic appointments, national and National Institutes of Health leadership roles; and career and mentorship satisfaction. Outcomes were recorded at 5, 10, and 15 years postgraduation, and aggregate anonymized data were divided into 3 groups using Women's Reproductive Health Research completion dates: June 30 of 2005, 2010, and 2015. Temporal trends were assessed. Results were stratified by gender, number of awarded grant cycles (1-2 vs 3-4), and specialty type. Analyses used Fisher exact or Pearson chi-square tests, and Mantel-Haenszel tests of trend. RESULTS: The distribution of the cohort (N=178) by graduation completion date was: on or before June 30, 2005 (57 [32%]); July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2010 (60 [34%]); and July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2015 (61 [34%]). Most participants were female (112 [64%]) and maternal-fetal medicine trained (53 [30%]), followed by no fellowship (50 [28%]). Of the 178 participants, 72 (40%) received additional National Institutes of Health funding as a principal investigator, 45 (25%) received at least 1 R01, and 23 (13%) received 2 to 5 R01s. There were 52 (31%) scholars with >10 first author publications, 66 (39%) with >10 last author publications, and 108 (63%) with ≥25 publications. The highest relative citation ratio was a median of 8.07 (interquartile range, 4.20-15.16). There were 121 (71%) scholars with relative citation ratio ≥5, indicating >5-fold greater publication impact than that of other National Institutes of Health-funded scientists in similar areas of research. No differences by gender, institution, or temporal trends were observed. Of the full cohort, 69 (45.7%) responded to the survey; most self-identified as women (50 [73%]) and White (51 [74%]). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the infrastructure provided by an institutional K award is an advantageous career development award mechanism for obstetrician-gynecologists, a group of predominantly women surgeons. It may serve as a corrective for the known inequities in National Institutes of Health funding by gender.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Dual-degree MD-PhD programs have historically lacked diversity of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and other facets of identity. Like MD- and PhD-granting programs, MD-PhD program training environments are also marked by structural barriers that negatively impact measurable academic outcomes of underrepresented and/or marginalized students in academic medicine (racial and ethnic minority groups considered underrepresented by the National Institute of Health, sexual and gender minorities, individuals with disabilities, and individuals of low socioeconomic status). In this article, we review the existing literature on MD-PhD program disparities affecting students from these groups and provide recommendations grounded on the reviewed evidence. Our literature review identified four generalizable barriers that can impact the training outcomes of students from these marginalized and/or underrepresented groups: 1) discrimination and bias, 2) impostor syndrome and stereotype threat, 3) lack of identity-similar mentors, and 4) suboptimal institutional policies and procedures. We propose goal-oriented interventions that may begin to ameliorate the disparities present in MD-PhD program training environments that affect students from marginalized and/or underrepresented groups in academic medicine.

Asunto(s)