Reinventing the physician-scientist in the new era of health care

Discovering Factors that Influence Physician Scientist Success in Academic Medical Centers

This study investigated factors influencing success of physician scientists in Academic Medical Centers. These organizations and individuals drive healthcare in the United States. Translation of scientific discovery to medical practice moves at an astoundingly slow and ineffective rate. We must understand what contributes to physician scientist success to speed up translation. Through a lens of dialectic process theory, a grounded theory approach identified emergent factors from lived experiences of 31 individuals, at various experience levels, with MD and PhD degrees. Role balance, autonomy, organizational support, teamwork, life-cycle mentorship, and relational capacity were relevant factors impacting success. Role balance was important for success. Teamwork, organizational support, and life-cycle mentorship helped individuals grow, achieve balance, and respect, but relational capacity emerged as a critical driver for realizing both individual and organizational success. One person cannot execute these complex roles on their own, but development of deep and meaningful relationships through teamwork, collaboration, and life-cycle mentorship are essential for life satisfaction and success.

Status of PharmD/PhD programs in colleges of pharmacy: the University of Tennessee dual PharmD/PhD program

OBJECTIVES

To describe the University of Tennessee PharmD/PhD program and assess the prevalence and characteristics of PharmD/PhD programs in the United States.

METHODS

Survey instruments were mailed in May 2004 to UT dual-degree program participants and deans of US colleges and schools of pharmacy.

RESULTS

University of Tennessee PharmD/PhD students completed more than 30 hours of graduate credit before obtaining their PharmD and 72.2% agreed or strongly agreed that the program met their professional goals. More than 40% of US pharmacy colleges and schools have or plan to have PharmD/PhD programs. A wide variation exists in the level of integration, PhD concentrations offered, entrance requirements, and student benefits. Most schools with PharmD/PhD programs had few students enrolled in the program, but attrition rates were low (<20%) for 69% of the schools.

CONCLUSIONS

Dual-degree programs attract and retain pharmacy students in research programs and 47.6% of graduates entered academia and industry.

Factors that influence doctors' participation in clinical research

BACKGROUND

Although clinical investigators are regarded as an endangered species, no systematic investigation of the factors that influence doctor participation in clinical research has previously been performed.

AIM

The objective of this study was to evaluate the influences of selected aspects of medical education, specialty selection and practice type upon current involvement in clinical research.

METHODS

Data were obtained by a mail survey of 428 graduates from the 1985-95 classes of the Penn State College of Medicine.

RESULTS

Among the 34% (n = 145) of doctors who were currently participating in clinical research, there was a higher rate of participation among those in medical and surgical specialties versus those in primary care or hospital-based specialties. Of those participating in clinical research, 46% (n = 65) had sought external funds for their research, and 82% (n = 51) of that group had been awarded funds. Those who had been awarded funds as the percentage of their time involved in clinical research increased were more likely to report that research carried out in medical school had positively influenced their current involvement in clinical research (P = 0.004). The gender distribution among both this latter funded group and the larger group of 145 who were participating in clinical research was 72% men and 28% women, whereas the gender distribution among all respondents was 60% men and 40% women. The 283 individuals who were not participating in clinical research cited financial, family, career plan and practice philosophy as reasons for not doing so.

CONCLUSION

The authors conclude that participation in medical research as a medical student may be under-recognised as a determinant of future involvement in clinical research and that the gender disparity of young doctors entering clinical research must be addressed.