Educating the surgeon-scientist: A qualitative study evaluating challenges and barriers toward becoming an academically successful surgeon

Grants and Funding in Podiatric Science

Evidence-based research is essential to improving podiatric medicine and surgery; however, there are many barriers to conducting research, with a major limitation being lack of research funding. There are various grants and funding sources available to podiatric surgeon scientists, but navigating through the resources can be daunting. In this article, we provide a framework for grant writing and funding opportunities for podiatric surgeons to consider.

A Nationwide Evaluation of Cardiothoracic Resident Research Productivity

BACKGROUND

Evaluating the research productivity of cardiothoracic surgery residents during their training and early career is crucial for tracking their academic development. To this end, the training pathway of residents and the characteristics of their program in relation to their productivity were evaluated.

METHODS

Alumni lists from integrated 6-year thoracic surgery (I-6) and traditional thoracic surgery residency programs were collected. A Python script was used to search PubMed for publications and the iCite database for citations from each trainee. Publications during a 20-year time span were stratified by the year of publication in relation to the trainee's graduation from thoracic surgery residency. Trainees were analyzed by training program type, institutional availability of a cardiothoracic surgery T32 training grant, and protected academic development time.

RESULTS

A total of 741 cardiothoracic surgery graduates (I-6, 70; traditional, 671) spanning 1971 to 2021 from 57 programs published >23,000 manuscripts. I-6 trainees published significantly more manuscripts during medical school and residency compared with traditional trainees. Trainees at institutions with cardiothoracic surgery T32 training grants published significantly more manuscripts than those at non-T32 institutions (13 vs 9; P = .0048). I-6 trainees published more manuscripts at programs with dedicated academic development time compared with trainees at programs without protected time (22 vs 9; P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

I-6 trainees publish significantly more manuscripts during medical school and residency compared with their traditional colleagues. Trainees at institutions with T32 training grants and dedicated academic development time publish a higher number of manuscripts than trainees without those opportunities.

Roadmap for Development of a Strong, Diverse Research Workforce in Neurosurgery

A benchmark of success for the neurosurgeon-scientist includes obtaining individual research funding from the National Institutes of Health. Successful roadmaps to this goal highlight diversity, individual commitment and resiliency, innovative research goals, intentional mentoring, protected research time, and financial support. We must equip neurosurgery residents to surmount obstacles such as long periods of training, gaps in research productivity, and limited protected time for research to ensure successful transition to independent research careers. Strong individual, departmental, and national commitment to scientific development of a diverse cohort of residents and junior faculty will increase the number and diversity of National Institutes of Health-funded neurosurgeon-scientists.

Gender profile of principal investigators in a large academic clinical trials group

Introduction

Gender equity in medicine has become a significant topic of discussion due to consistently low female representation in academia and leadership roles. Gender imbalance directly affects patient care. This study examined the gender and craft group of the Principal Investigators (PI) of clinical trials run by the Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group (AGITG)

Methods

Publicly available data was obtained from the AGITG website. Trials were divided into upper, lower gastrointestinal cancer, miscellaneous (neuroendocrine and gastrointestinal stromal tumours). Where multiple PIs were listed, all were counted. Craft group was assigned as surgical, medical, radiation oncology or other.

Results

There were 69 trials with 89 PI, where 52 trials were represented exclusively by male PIs. Of all PIs, 18 were women (20.2%); all were medical oncologists. Prior to 2005, all PIs were male. The craft group distribution of PIs was: 79% medical oncologists, 12% surgical oncologists, 8% radiation oncologist, 1% nuclear medicine physicians. Regarding trials with multiple PI's, there were 19 in total. Of these, 11 had only male PIs, which included 5 surgeons. Females were more likely to be a co-PI (42%) as opposed to sole PI (18%). There was no gender policy publicly available on the AGITG website.

Conclusions

There is a low percentage of female PIs in academic oncology trials in the portfolio of this large international trials group. No trial was led by a female surgical or radiation oncologist. There is a need to understand the reasons driving the disparity so that specific strategies can be put in place.

A Tiered Mentorship Program to Integrate Medical Students Into Clinical Research Projects

OBJECTIVE

Herein we describe the development, implementation, and growth of our Vascular Research Training Program (VRTP), emphasizing the intentional involvement of medical students in clinical research.

METHODS

We developed a VRTP focusing on medical student engagement to encompass 4 pillars: ownership, mentorship, experience, and independence within the research process. The program is organized by clinical projects with an attending surgeon, surgical trainee (fellow or resident), and medical student comprising each research project team. The VRTP program sought to facilitate a culture of learning, accountability, and mentorship to engage and encourage medical student involvement in clinical research.

RESULTS

We reviewed the productivity of our current vascular surgery faculty by reviewing divisional records of faculty publications and conducting a literature search for the period of 2012 to 2019. The pre-VRTP model produced 13 included manuscripts in 2012-2015 (3.25 per year), while the implemented VRTP model yielded 43 articles (10.75 per year) from 2016-2019. There was no significant change in the impact factor (pre-VRTP mean ± SD was 1.8 ± 1.0 vs 2.2 ± 1.1, P = .17). Medical student productivity rose from 1.3 to 2.7 publications, with a similar rise in the number of students participating in more than one manuscript from 2 to 14.

CONCLUSIONS

Deliberate involvement of medical trainees as a member of the clinical research team has the potential to generate subsequent increases in research productivity and effective mentorships. Academic surgical divisions should consider organized and intentional involvement of medical students as an essential component of clinical research.

A Primer for Success as an Early Career Academic Plastic Surgeon

The early career academic plastic surgeon strives to be an expert surgeon, an innovative researcher, and an impactful educator. Navigating these challenges is difficult in a healthcare landscape with diminishing public research funding, increasing demand from institutions for clinical productivity, and decreased value of surgical education. To help the junior academic plastic surgeon, this article discusses the fundamental aspects of developing an early academic plastic surgery practice, rooted in clinical care, research, and education.

METHODS

Using published literature, expert opinion, and faculty interviews, the authors prepared this primer for education and guidance of plastic surgery residents considering a career in academic plastic surgery and early career academic plastic surgeons.

RESULTS

This primer highlights elements important to succeeding as a junior academic plastic surgeon including defining goals and priorities, institutional and financial support, mentorship, education of students and residents, developing a practice niche, promotion and tenure, and social support and burnout.

CONCLUSION

The early career academic plastic surgeon can create an environment for academic success with appropriate institutional support, mentorship, personal, and social support, to progress toward promotion while minimizing burnout and professional exhaustion.

Setting Up for Success: Strategies to Foster Surgeons' Pursuit of Basic Science Research

BACKGROUND

Surgeons make important contributions to basic science research and are in a unique position to innovate scientifically. The number of surgeons pursuing basic science research has been declining over the past two decades. We sought to describe perceived barriers to surgeons' pursuit of basic science research and identify interventions that mitigate these obstacles.

MATERIALS & METHODS

An online survey was sent to chairs of academic surgery departments and practicing surgeons involved in basic science research. A subset of these participants were interviewed about their experiences. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and uploaded to NVivo. Two coders developed a codebook using inductive content analysis to identify relevant themes.

RESULTS

97 people responded to the survey, 27 (29%) were department chairs. Major barriers to basic science research for all respondents were lack of funding, clinical duties and lack of dedicated time for research. Nine surgeons and three departmental chairs were subsequently interviewed. The importance of having clear research goals and timetables with specific plans for attaining funding were mentioned by all. Chairs described the usefulness of embedding early surgeon scientists in their scientific mentors' labs in a post-doctoral model. Additionally, departmental leaders must actively work to protect surgeon scientists from encroaching clinical and administrative demands.

CONCLUSIONS

While barriers to surgeons' pursuit of basic science research exist, the surgeon scientist is a phenotype that can be fostered with the dedication and commitment of surgeons to continue to pursue science research and active support of departmental leadership.

Climbing the grants ladder: Funding opportunities for surgeons

Surgeon-scientists provide critical perspectives to academic medicine, both as lead scientists and as collaborators. Successfully applying for and obtaining funding is critical to sustain a research program; however, significant challenges exist. It is imperative to be aware of and consider all funding sources available to surgeons during the evolution of one's career. Additionally, a deep understanding of intramural and extramural nonfinancial resources, such as mentorship relationships, grant writing, and career development courses, and research infrastructure are required. In this article, we present a set of recommendations and guidelines for surgeon-scientists to leverage funding resources with active planning longitudinally during their careers to sustain their research programs and provide their unique perspectives on surgical disease to the scientific community.

Going 'trans-E-3-ve': Educational principles for a new generation of medical students

Educating medical students represents a thrilling yet challenging task. In an era of research breakthroughs but also global health setbacks, there is a risk that scientists and educators focus on highly specialized areas of knowledge, neglecting interrelated systemic issues. Here, we argue that the education of medical students should be embraced using a different strategy remodeled through what we call a 'tranS-E-3-ve' lens. In this new approach, there is no room for scientific reductionism. Instead, health disciplines should be seen from a translational, trans-disciplinary and trans-territorial scope, and should be sensitive to problems and pathways that link global phenomena to health. While current health issues cannot be approached without an equity lens, there are three interconnected dimensions of health that should pervade the content, goals, and design of academic curricula in medical schools: (1) exposome, or the understanding of the environmental contributors to health and disease; (2) identification of the mechanisms involved in the interactions between the elements that constitute complex systems; and (3) 'inner space', or the study of how cells communicate within the human body.

How to Support a Surgeon Scientist: Lessons from National Institutes of Health K-Award Recipients

BACKGROUND

Success in academic surgery is challenging and research cannot survive without funding. NIH K-awards are designed to mentor junior investigators to achieve independence. As a result we aimed to study K awardees in departments of surgery and learn from their experience.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Utilizing the NIH RePORTer database and filtering by department of surgery, clinically active surgeons receiving a K-award between 2008 and 2018 were asked to complete an online survey. Qualitative data from two open-ended questions were coded independently using standard qualitative methods by three researchers. Using grounded theory, major themes emerged from the codes.

RESULTS

Of the 144 academic surgeons identified, 89 (62%) completed the survey. The average age was 39 ± 3 when the K-award was granted. Most identified as white (69%). Men (70%) were more likely to be married (P = 0.02) and have children (P = 0.05). To identify intention to pursue R01 funding, surgeons having a K-award for 5 y or more were analyzed (n = 45). Most either intended to (11%) or had already applied (80%) of which 36% were successful. Men were more likely to apply (P = 0.05). Major themes to succeed include protected time, mentorship, and support from leadership. Common barriers to overcome include balancing time, pressures to be clinically productive, and funding.

CONCLUSIONS

The demographics and career trajectory of NIH K-awarded surgeons is described. The lack of underrepresented minorities receiving grants is concerning. Most recipients required more than one application attempt and plan to or have applied for R01 funding. The major themes were very similar; a supportive environment and time available for research are the most crucial factors to succeed as an academic surgeon.

The Highly Structured Physician Scientist Training Program (PSTP) for Medical Students at the University of Pittsburgh

The University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Physician Scientist Training Program (PSTP) is a 5-year medical student training program designed to prepare the next generation of MD-only physician-scientists engaging in preclinical research. This article provides an overview of the program, including the novel longitudinal structure and competency goals, which facilitate success and persistence in a laboratory-based physician-scientist career. The authors present data on 81 medical students accepted to the program from academic year 2007-2008 through 2018-2019. Extrinsic outcomes, such as publications, grant funding, and residency matching, indicate that PSTP trainees have actively generated research deliverables. A majority of eligible PSTP trainees have earned Howard Hughes Medical Institute Medical Research Fellow funding. PSTP students have produced a mean of 1.6 first-authored publications (median, 1.0) and a mean of 5.1 total publications (median, 4.0) while in medical school and have authored 0.9 publications per year as residents/fellows, excluding internship. Nearly 60% of PSTP students (26/46) have matched to top-10 National Institutes of Health-funded residency programs in their specialty (based on Blue Ridge Institute rankings). PSTP alumni are twice as likely as their classmates to match into research-heavy departments and to publish first-authored papers. Results of a 2018 program evaluation survey indicate that intrinsic outcomes, such as confidence in research skills, significantly correlate with extrinsic outcomes. The program continues to evolve to maximize both scientific agency and career navigation skills in participants. This medical student PSTP model has potential to expand the pool of physician-scientist researchers in preclinical research beyond the capacity of dedicated MD-PhD and postgraduate training programs.

From bedside to bench: an evaluation of expectations and challenges encountered by young surgeons facing basic science

Background: The evolution of surgical practice may lead to increasing difficulties for surgeons to perform fundamental research. The aim of this study was to evaluate the expectations and the challenges encountered by young surgeons when starting basic science.Methods: A qualitative study was conducted in France. A written questionnaire was anonymously filled by the participants attending to the Master Degree in surgical science.Results: The study included 47 participants (median age: 28 years, 59.6% of men); 37 (78.7%) participants had applied for a grant for their salary and 32 (68.1%) had obtained it. Nine (19.1%) participants had planned to keep their usual clinical activity. The main motivations were the perspective to embark on an academic career (55.3%) and improvement of knowledge in science (38.3%). The main barriers encountered were the lack of time (70.2%), the lack of interest (27.7%), the lack of financial support (23.4%) and administrative difficulties (12.8%).Conclusion: This study identified main barriers that young surgeons have to face when getting involved in basic science underlining the need to improve institutional and financial support to ensure involvement of new generations of surgeons in surgical research.

Navigating the Postgraduate Research Fellowship: A Roadmap for Surgical Residents

BACKGROUND

To preserve the future of surgical innovation, opportunities for surgical residents to receive structured research training are paramount. The objective of this article is to help surgical residents navigate a research fellowship by overviewing key topics such as choosing an area of focus and supervisor, applying for external funding, transitioning away from clinical duties, managing intellectual property, integrating family planning, and incorporating research experience into independent career development.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using the framework of the University of Toronto's graduate degree-awarding Surgeon-Scientist Training Program, the authors outline key considerations, decisions, and pearls for surgical residents considering or currently enrolled in a full-time research fellowship training program.

RESULTS

Full-time research fellowships offer a unique opportunity for residents interested in an academic career. Such full-time research fellowships away from clinical duties allow surgical trainees to focus on developing key research competencies, including how to generate hypotheses, apply research methodology, gain experience presenting and publishing manuscripts, and ultimately apply these skills as independent investigators to improve patient and population health. Research fellowships may also be an opportunity to develop intellectual property or facilitate family planning. Practical tips are provided for the transition back into clinical training and how to effectively market one's research skills for career advancement.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors outline key considerations, decisions, and pearls for surgical residents considering or currently enrolled in a full-time research fellowship training program. By adhering to the principles highlighted in this article, residents will be able to successfully navigate a full-time research fellowship to optimize their intellectual development, maximize their academic productivity, and facilitate their transition into an independent investigator.

Factors Affecting Research Productivity of Trauma Surgeons

This study aimed to identify factors that promote and impede research participation and productivity by Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) surgeons. In addition, the study aimed to determine what changes can be implemented by surgical departments to improve this research productivity and granting. A 25-question anonymous research survey tool was offered to EAST surgeons. The questions analyzed factors including demographics, career accomplishments, current institution type, educational/research background, perceived barriers to research, and current research productivity, including grants. Chi-square tests were used to analyze significance at P < 0.05. The overall response rate was 26.2 per cent (445/1699). Most respondents reported not having any protected research time (86.3%), and no research resources were provided by their institution (78.7%). Factors that were significantly associated with greater research productivity included protected research time ( P < 0.0001), having a mentor ( P < 0.001), practicing in a university-affiliated hospital ( P < 0.0001), publication(s) before completing residency training ( P = 0.02), having institutional resources dedicated to research ( P = 0.015), and male gender ( P = 0.003). Age, race, marital status, and additional educational qualifications were not associated with statistically significant differences in research productivity in this study ( P > 0.05). EAST surgeons are more likely to have scholarly productivity if they are supported with protected time, mentors, nonclinical staff dedicated to research, a history of research before completion of residency, and research resources from their institution. Barriers to research productivity include lack of institutional support, lack of protected research time, and increased regulatory policies.

The Society of Black Academic Surgeons CV benchmarking initiative: Early career trends of academic surgical leaders

BACKGROUND

Surgeons from under-represented backgrounds are less likely to receive academic tenure and obtain leadership positions. Our objective was to query the curriculum vitaes (CVs) of SBAS leadership to develop a benchmarking tool to promote and guide careers in academic surgery.

METHODS

CVs from academic leaders were reviewed for academic productivity at early career stages-the first 5-and 10-years. Variables queried: peer-reviewed publications, grant funding, surgical societal involvement, invited lectureships and visiting professorships.

RESULTS

Of 20 CVs, 41 leadership positions including 13 SBAS Presidents were identified. At 5- and 10-years, respectively, the academic productivity increased: 20.6 and 52.3 publications; 4.7 and 9.7 grants; 18 and 42.6 lectures/professorships.

CONCLUSION

The CV benchmarking tool may be a useful framework for aspiring academic surgeons to track their progress relative to successful SBAS members. Creative strategies like these, paired with faculty mentorship and sponsorship are necessary to improve the ethnic diversity in academic surgery.

Pediatric Surgical Research Output in Germany in the Last 30 Years - An Assessment and International Comparison of Three Dedicated Paediatric Surgical Journals

Purpose: Research output of once-leading countries in surgical journals is decreasing despite an overall increase of scientific publications by 8% per year. We aimed to assess research outputs of German, Dutch, and Israeli pediatric surgeons in dedicated pediatric surgical journals in order to get insight into trends in pediatric surgical research. Methods: We collected bibliographic information on all original articles in the Journal of Pediatric Surgery, European Journal of Pediatric Surgery, and Pediatric Surgery International in 1985-1988, 2000-2003, and 2015-2018 that had a German, Dutch or Israeli last author from a department of pediatric surgery. Citation counts were obtained from the Web of Science. Results: Research output of German pediatric surgery decreased from 19 manuscripts in 1988 (0.1/surgeon/year) to eight manuscripts in 2017 (0.02/surgeon/year), whereas those of the Netherlands increased from two manuscripts in 1985 (0.08/surgeon/year) to 12 manuscripts in 2016 (0.3/surgeon/year). The declining German research output negatively correlated with increasing numbers of specialist pediatric surgeons for total (τ = -0.54; P = 0.0156) and manuscripts per surgeon (τ = -0.79; P = 0.0001), resulting in a negative trend over time (χ² = 11.845, P = 0.0006). Analyses of citation patterns revealed that manuscripts by Dutch pediatric surgeons and those published in the Journal of Pediatric Surgery had higher absolute citation counts than the reference category of a German manuscript in the European Journal of Pediatric Surgery. Age-corrected citation rates resembled this result by increasing from 2000 to 2003 ( x ˜ = 0.799, range: 0-3.368) to 2015-2018 ( x ˜ = 2, range: 0-5) (P = 0.035) for the Netherlands. Assessment of manuscript types revealed that the proportion of prospective studies increased in the German sample (χ² = 5.05, P = 0.0246), but remained the lowest among the comparators. Surprisingly, the proportion of non-clinical manuscripts from Germany also increased over time (χ² = 4.001, P = 0.0455), whereas it remained constant in both the Netherlands and Israel. Conclusion: German pediatric surgical research output decreased in the last thirty years based on the sample of dedicated pediatric surgical journals, while Dutch productivity increased. Citation rates-as a measure of scientific impact-were associated and increased with Dutch manuscripts. The involved factors remain to be determined and whether this represents a shift toward other journals or mirrors a general development.

Are surgeons behind the scientific eight ball: Delayed acquisition of the NIH K08 mentored career development award

BACKGROUND

Surgery residents complete their research training early in residency. Non-surgical trainees typically have research incorporated toward the last two years of their fellowship, conferring an advantage to apply for grants with recent research experience and preliminary data.

METHODS

The NIH RePORTER database was queried for K08 awardees trained in medicine, pediatrics, and surgery from 2013 to 2017. 406 K08 recipients were identified and time from completion of clinical training to achieving a K08 award was measured. Data were compared using ANOVA and expressed as mean. P < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Surgeons took longer to obtain a K08 than those trained in internal medicine (surgery = 3.7 years, internal medicine = 2.58 years p < 0.0001)). All K08 recipients without a PhD took longer to obtain a K08 than recipients with a PhD (MD = 3.50 years and MD/PhD = 2.42 years (p=<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons take longer to achieve a K08 award than clinicians trained in internal medicine, possibly due to an inherent disadvantage in training structure.

Relationship between sociodemographic factors and specialty destination of UK trainee doctors: a national cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Many countries are driving forward policies to widen the socioeconomic profile of medical students and to train more medical students for certain specialties. However, little is known about how socioeconomic origin relates to specialty choice. Nor is there a good understanding of the relationship between academic performance and specialty choice. To address these gaps, our aim was to identify the relationship between socioeconomic background, academic performance and accepted offers into specialty training.

DESIGN

Longitudinal, cohort study using data from the UK Medical Education Database (https://www.ukmed.ac.uk/).

PARTICIPANTS

6065 (60% females) UK doctors who accepted offers to a specialty training (residency) post after completing the 2-year generic foundation programme (UK Foundation Programme) between 2012 and 2014.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Χ² tests were used to examine the relationships between sociodemographic characteristics, academic ability and the dependent variable, specialty choice. Multiple data imputation was used to address the issue of missing data. Multinomial regression was employed to test the independent variables in predicting the likelihood of choosing a given specialty.

RESULTS

Participants pursuing careers in more competitive specialties had significantly higher academic scores than colleagues pursuing less competitive ones. After controlling for the presence of multiple factors, trainees who came from families where no parent was educated to a degree level had statistically significant lower odds of choosing careers in medical specialties relative to general practice (OR=0.78, 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.92). Students who entered medical school as school leavers, compared with mature students, had odds 1.2 times higher (95% CI, 1.04 to 1.56) of choosing surgical specialties than general practice.

CONCLUSIONS

The data indicate a direct association between trainees' sociodemographic characteristics, academic ability and career choices. The findings can be used by medical school, training boards and workforce planners to inform recruitment and retention strategies.

Can Lung Transplant Surgeons Still Be Scientists? High Productivity Despite Competitive Funding

BACKGROUND

Today's declining federal budget for scientific research is making it consistently more difficult to become federally funded. We hypothesized that even in this difficult era, surgeon-scientists have remained among the most productive and impactful researchers in lung transplantation.

METHODS

Grants awarded by the NIH for the study of lung transplantation between 1985 and 2015 were identified by searching NIH RePORTER for 5 lung transplantation research areas. A grant impact metric was calculated for each grant by dividing the sum of impact factors for all associated manuscripts by the total funding for that grant. We used nonparametric univariate analysis to compare grant impact metrics by department.

RESULTS

We identified 109 lung transplantation grants, totaling approximately $300 million, resulting in 2304 papers published in 421 different journals. Surgery has the third highest median grant impact metric (4.2 per $100,000). The department of surgery had a higher median grant impact metric compared to private companies (P <.0001). There was no statistical difference in the grant impact metric compared to all other medical specialties, individual departments with multiple grants, or all basic science departments (all P >.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeon-scientists in the field of lung transplantation have received fewer grants and less total funding compared to other researchers but have maintained an equally high level of productivity and impact. The dual-threat academic surgeon-scientist is an important asset to the research community and should continue to be supported by the NIH.

A Roadmap for Aspiring Surgeon-Scientists in Today's Healthcare Environment

OBJECTIVE

Surgeon-scientists are an essential component of the field of academic surgery, contributing to the fundamental understanding of disease and the discovery of innovative therapies. Despite this recognized value, the current landscape of academic medicine presents significant barriers to establishing and maintaining a successful career as a surgeon performing basic/translational research. Our objective is to define these barriers to academic success for surgeons, and to provide a consensus strategy for optimizing the chances of success.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

There is a significant decline in the proportion of academic surgeons who are pursuing basic science/translational research, which represents a potential threat to the very identify of the translational surgeon-scientist.

METHODS

Based on published literature and expert opinion, the Basic Science Committee of the Society of University of Surgeons prepared this roadmap to encourage and guide the next generation of surgeon-scientists as they embark on their academic careers.

RESULTS

This roadmap highlights key elements to consider in choosing an initial job and the importance of identifying a team of committed mentors. Expectations and guidelines for the first several years in practice are offered.

CONCLUSIONS

With guidance and mentorship, aspiring surgeonscientists can overcome the challenges inherent in choosing this career path and sustain the important legacy of those before them.

Cardiothoracic surgery training grants provide protected research time vital to the development of academic surgeons

BACKGROUND

The Ruth L. Kirschstein Institutional National Research Service Award (T32) provides institutions with financial support to prepare trainees for careers in academic medicine. In 1990, the Cardiac Surgery Branch of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) was replaced by T32 training grants, which became crucial sources of funding for cardiothoracic (CT) surgical research. We hypothesized that T32 grants would be valuable for CT surgery training and yield significant publications and subsequent funding.

METHODS

Data on all trainees (past and present) supported by CT T32 grants at two institutions were obtained (T32), along with information on trainees from two similarly sized programs without CT T32 funding (Non-T32). Data collected were publicly available and included publications, funding, degrees, fellowships, and academic rank. Non-surgery residents and residents who did not pursue CT surgery were excluded.

RESULTS

Out of 76 T32 trainees and 294 Non-T32 trainees, data on 62 current trainees or current CT surgeons (T32: 42 vs Control: 20) were included. Trainees who were supported by a CT T32 grant were more likely to pursue CT surgery after residency (T32: 40% [30/76] vs Non-T32: 7% [20/294], P < .0001), publish manuscripts during residency years (P < .0001), obtain subsequent NIH funding (T32: 33% [7/21] vs Non-T32: 5% [1/20], P = .02), and pursue advanced fellowships (T32: 41% [9/22] vs Non-T32: 10% [2/20], P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

T32 training grants supporting CT surgery research are vital to develop academic surgeons. These results support continued funding by the NHLBI to effectively develop and train the next generation of academic CT surgeons.

Research methodology: how to maximize your research potential

Scientific education and a clinical background allow orthopaedic surgeons to perform leading research. Several resources, skills and techniques may be developed to maximize their research potential.Surgeon-researchers should develop Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Time-defined (SMART) goals. It is critical to define a timeline - which can be 1 year, 3 years, 5 years - to re-evaluate goals and to plan and identify potential obstacles.Physician-scientists are a product of training, funding, resources, practice setting, context, environment, and infrastructure. Although orthopaedic surgery has difficulty in recruiting surgeon-scientists, these are essential for the promotion of advances in technologies and treatment, as they have unique abilities to raise questions from the bedside and the operating room.The most critical personal traits necessary to succeed as a surgeon-scientist are persistence, resilience, and passion for research. These traits may be innate or acquired through mentorship and from role models.Mentors can improve mentees' research efficiency and help them to persevere.Clinical researchers and surgeon-scientists should focus their research interests and efforts in their areas of clinical expertise.For surgeon-researchers to succeed they must have passion for research, persistence in working toward a goal, collaboration/teamwork skills, resilience, research training/experience, a track record of publications, clear goals and expectations, and a defined research plan as well as being clinically excellent. A formal research degree is desirable.Having non-clinician scientists in the team brings added expertise and value.Funding and protected research time are important. To provide outstanding clinical care and improve the quality of the care delivered, surgeons must be leaders in innovation and research. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3 DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170065.

Career Development Awards in Emergency Medicine: Resources and Challenges

OBJECTIVES

In the United States, emergency medicine (EM) researchers hold proportionately fewer federal career development awards than researchers in other specialties. Others hypothesize that this deficit may partly be attributed to lack of mentors, departmental resources, and qualified applicants. Our objectives were to examine the association between departmental and institutional resources and career development awards and to describe the barriers to conducting research and btaining grants in EM.

METHODS

We conducted an online, cross-sectional survey study of vice chairs for research and research directors at academic emergency departments in the United States in January and February 2016. Participants provided quantitative information regarding their department's demographics, available research resources, number of funded independent investigators, and number of career development awards. They were also asked about the perceived adequacy of departmental and institutional resources and perceived barriers to research and grant success. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multivariable linear regression, as appropriate.

RESULTS

Of 178 eligible participants, 103 (58%) completed the survey. Most departments reported some infrastructure for research and grant submission, including research coordinator(s) (n = 75/99; 76%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 66%-84%), research associates (69/99; 70%, 95% CI = 60%-79%), and administrative/secretarial research support (79/101; 78%, 95% CI = 69%-86%). The majority of departments (56/103; 49%, 95% CI = 44%-64%) had no R01-funded researchers, and only 15 (15%, 95% CI = 8%-23%) had three or more R01-funded researchers. The most frequently reported challenge to junior faculty applying for grants was low motivation for applying (62/103; 60%, 95% CI = 50%-70%), followed closely by insufficient mentorship (50/103; 49%, 95% CI = 39%-59%) and discouragement from low funding rates (50/103; 49%, 95% CI = 39%-59%). In the multivariable model, only the number of departmental R-level-funded researchers was associated with the number of departmental career development awards (coefficient = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.39-1.11; R²  = 0.57).

CONCLUSIONS

While more multiple departmental and institutional resources correlated with a greater number of funded career development awards, the single greatest predictor was the number of R-level-funded researchers in the department. Low motivation and insufficient mentorship were the most frequently reported barriers to junior faculty applying for career development awards. Further studies are needed to describe junior faculty perspectives on these issues and to explore strategies for overcoming these barriers.