Future Directions of Training Physician-Scientists: Reimagining and Remeasuring the Workforce

An Approach to Successful Development of Clinician-Scientists in Neurology: The NINDS R25 Experience

OBJECTIVE

Training clinician-scientists is a primary objective of many academic neurology departments, as these individuals are uniquely positioned to perform insightful clinical or laboratory-based research informed both by clinical knowledge and their own experiences caring for patients. Despite its importance, training clinician-scientists has perhaps never been so challenging. The National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) R25 program was designed in an attempt to support these individuals, decrease the time needed to obtain National Institutes of Health K awards, and to help educate a cohort of trainees preparing for a career in academic neurology. We endeavored to describe the structure and features of the program while examining its outcomes.

METHODS

R25 outcome data from 2009 to 2024 were reviewed. Statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided Mann-Whitney U testing.

RESULTS

A total of 67% of adult neurologists who received an R25 had a successful application for a National Institutes of Health K award compared with 45% of adult neurologists who had not received R25 support (p < 0.0001). Among child neurologists, 73% who applied went on to receive K funding after R25 support, compared with 45% who had not been part of the R25 program (p < 0.001). The average time between completion of residency and obtaining a K award for R25 participants was decreased by 26 months among those with an MD/PhD degree, and 32 months for those with an MD degree compared with non-R25 individuals.

INTERPRETATION

The R25 program has been successful in achieving its training goals, but stands as only one component of support for aspiring clinician-scientists. Investments and commitments made by academic neurology departments are key to supporting this success. ANN NEUROL 2024;96:625-632.

Enhancing the physician-scientist workforce: evaluating a mentored research program for medical students' research competencies and intentions

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.

The Global Andrology Forum (GAF): Structure, Roles, Functioning and Outcomes: An Online Model for Collaborative Research

PURPOSE

There are no published examples of a global online research collaborative in andrology. We describe the development, profile and member characteristics of the first consortium of this type, the Global Andrology Forum (GAF).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An online survey sent to all GAF members collected demographic information (sex, age, experience, academic title, degrees, country, specialty, profession). It also tapped data on members' characteristics e.g., skills in research, software and statistics; preferred activities; time commitments; expected roles; and interest in participating in research, in GAF's scientific activities and collaborative online research. The findings were analyzed and tabulated. We outline members' demographic and professional characteristics and scientific achievements to date. A narrative approach outlined GAF's structure and functioning.

RESULTS

A total of 418 out of 540 members completed the survey and were included in the analysis (77.4% response rate). The sample comprised mainly urologists (34.2%) and a third of the respondents had practiced for >15 years (33.3%). Up to 86.1% of the members expressed interest in being actively engaged in writing scientific articles. A third of the sample (37.1%) could dedicate 4 to 6 hours/week. Few respondents reported skills in statistics and artwork (2.6% and 1.9% respectively). Members were assigned to specific roles based on their expertise and experiences. Collaborative working ensured the timely completion of projects while maintaining quality. For outcomes, GAF published 29 original articles within one year of its creation, with authors from 48 countries spanning topics that included varicocele, sperm DNA damage, oxidative stress, semen analysis and male infertility, oocyte/embryo, and laboratory issues of assisted reproductive technique (ART) and male infertility evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

GAF is a successful global online andrology research model. A healthy number of scientific articles have been published. Given such effectiveness, adopting the GAF model could be useful for other disciplines that wish to create and coordinate successful international online research groups.

Key informants perspectives on creating a high impact research department in family and community medicine: a qualitative project

BACKGROUND

Primary care is integral to the health system and population health. Primary care research is still in development and most academic departments lack effective research investments. High impact primary care research programs are needed to advance the field to ensure a robust primary care system for the future. The project objective was to understand key informants' views of structures, functions, and processes required to create a high impact research program in an academic primary care department.

METHODS

A descriptive qualitative project with key informants from research programs in primary care. Participants included international research leaders in primary care (n = 10), department of family and community researchers (n = 37) and staff (n = 9) in an academic primary care department, other university leaders (n = 3) and members of the departmental executive leadership team (1 department; 25 members). Semi-structured interviews (n = 27), and focus groups (n = 6) were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis. We used a socioecological framework which described micro, meso, macro levels of influence.

RESULTS

At the micro level despite barriers with respect to funding, protected time and lack of formal mentorship, personal motivation was a key factor. At the meso level, the organizational structure that promoted collaboration and a sense of connection emerged as a key factor. Specifically research leaders identified a research faculty development pipeline based on equity, diversity, inclusion, indigeneity, and accessibility principles with thematic areas of focus as key enablers. Lastly, at the macro level, an overarching culture and policies that promoted funding and primary care research was associated with high impact programs.

CONCLUSION

The alignment/complementarity of micro, meso, and macro level factors influenced the creation of a high impact research department in primary care. High impact research in primary care is facilitated by the development of researchers through formalized and structured mentorship/sponsorship and a department culture that promote primary care research.

Transforming modeling in neurorehabilitation: clinical insights for personalized rehabilitation

Practicing clinicians in neurorehabilitation continue to lack a systematic evidence base to personalize rehabilitation therapies to individual patients and thereby maximize outcomes. Computational modeling- collecting, analyzing, and modeling neurorehabilitation data- holds great promise. A key question is how can computational modeling contribute to the evidence base for personalized rehabilitation? As representatives of the clinicians and clinician-scientists who attended the 2023 NSF DARE conference at USC, here we offer our perspectives and discussion on this topic. Our overarching thesis is that clinical insight should inform all steps of modeling, from construction to output, in neurorehabilitation and that this process requires close collaboration between researchers and the clinical community. We start with two clinical case examples focused on motor rehabilitation after stroke which provide context to the heterogeneity of neurologic injury, the complexity of post-acute neurologic care, the neuroscience of recovery, and the current state of outcome assessment in rehabilitation clinical care. Do we provide different therapies to these two different patients to maximize outcomes? Asking this question leads to a corollary: how do we build the evidence base to support the use of different therapies for individual patients? We discuss seven points critical to clinical translation of computational modeling research in neurorehabilitation- (i) clinical endpoints, (ii) hypothesis- versus data-driven models, (iii) biological processes, (iv) contextualizing outcome measures, (v) clinical collaboration for device translation, (vi) modeling in the real world and (vii) clinical touchpoints across all stages of research. We conclude with our views on key avenues for future investment (clinical-research collaboration, new educational pathways, interdisciplinary engagement) to enable maximal translational value of computational modeling research in neurorehabilitation.

Opinion & Special Articles: Navigating Your First Academic Job Search. Pearls, Pitfalls, and Lessons Learned

Most graduating neurology residents plan to pursue an academic career after completing residency or fellowship training. Although a career in academic neurology has many benefits, the path to finding the right first academic job can be challenging. For many, this may be their first professional job, and finding an ideal academic position requires a tailored approach, focus, timeline, and scope. In this article, we outline a roadmap for navigating the first academic job search after neurology training and share pearls and pitfalls related to the job search.

An Assessment of Clinical Research Self-Efficacy among Researchers at the Largest Healthcare Institute in Qatar: Recommendations and Future Actions

OBJECTIVES

Clinical research professionals must be equipped with adequate training in sound scientific methods and appropriate ethics. In this study, we aimed to assess the current clinical research self-efficacy of researchers at Hamad Medical Corporation (HMC). We also evaluated the effects of training courses on researchers' self-efficacy.

METHODS

Utilizing a cross-sectional design, we used the shortened Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory (CRAI-12) through an online survey to assess the current clinical research self-efficacy of 600 researchers at HMC, Doha, Qatar. After conducting descriptive analyses, unpaired t test and ANOVA were used to determine significant mean percentages between variables. Pearson correlation coefficients were also calculated to measure the association among the interval variables. All tests were 2-sided, and significance was defined as P < .05.

RESULTS

For all questions, except those related to "funding," most participants scored on the upper half of the scale (>5), reflecting higher self-efficacy for the topics covered in CRAI. Gender differences were significant across all factors, with males reporting higher levels of self-assessed efficacy and in clinical research. Other factors such as higher education degrees and previous (external) clinical research training were also associated with higher self-reported clinical research efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study indicate that researchers at HMC possess high clinical research self-efficacy overall, but lower self-efficacy in securing funding. Gender and education level positively influence self-efficacy across CRAI factors. Notably, clinical research training boosts self-efficacy, especially when obtained outside HMC. In conclusion, healthcare providers are strongly encouraged to engage in effective clinical research training courses, both within and outside of their healthcare institutions, to improve their clinical research efficacy and enhance clinical practice.

The Pittman Scholar Program for junior faculty recognition at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Heersink School of Medicine

The University of Alabama at Birmingham Heersink School of Medicine established the Pittman Scholars Program in 2015 to elevate scientific impact and to support the recruitment and retention of highly competitive junior faculty. The authors examined the impact of this program on research productivity and on faculty retention. The authors evaluated publications and extramural grant awards and available demographic data for the Pittman Scholars compared to all junior faculty in the Heersink School of Medicine. From 2015 to 2021, the program awarded a diverse group of 41 junior faculty members across the institution. For this cohort, ninety-four new extramural grants were awarded and 146 grant applications were submitted since the inception of the scholar award. Pittman Scholars published a total of 411 papers during the term of the award. The faculty retention rate of the scholars was 95%, comparable to that of all Heersink junior faculty, with 2 recipients being recruited to other institutions. The implementation of the Pittman Scholars Program has been an effective strategy to celebrate scientific impact and acknowledge junior faculty members as outstanding scientists at our institution. The Pittman Scholars award allows junior faculty to use funds for their research program, publications, collaborations, and career advancement. The Pittman Scholars are recognized at local, regional, and national levels for the work they are contributing to academic medicine. The program has served as an important pipeline faculty development program and an avenue for individual recognition for research-intensive faculty.

Research in orthopaedic trauma surgery: approaches of basic scientists and clinicians and the relevance of interprofessional research teams

BACKGROUND

An increasing clinical workload and growing financial, administrative and legal burdens as well as changing demands regarding work-life balance have resulted in an increased emphasis on clinical practice at the expense of research activities by orthopaedic trauma surgeons. This has led to an overall decrease in the number of scientifically active clinicians in orthopaedic trauma surgery, which represents a serious burden on research in this field. In order to guarantee that the clinical relevance of this discipline is also mirrored in the scientific field, new concepts are needed to keep clinicians involved in research.

METHODS

Literature review and discussion of the results of a survey.

RESULTS/CONCLUSION

An interdisciplinary and -professional team approach involving clinicians and basic scientists with different fields of expertise appears to be a promising method. Although differences regarding motivation, research focuses, funding rates and sources as well as inhibitory factors for research activities between basic scientists and clinicians exist, successful and long-lasting collaborations have already proven fruitful. For further implementation of the team approach, diverse prerequisites are necessary. Among those measures, institutions (e.g. societies, universities etc.) must shift the focus of their support mechanisms from independent scientist models to research team performances.

An exploration of the professional identity of clinical academics using repertory grid technique

BACKGROUND

Clinicians who divide their time between clinical work and research have contributed to some of the most fundamental breakthroughs in medicine in recent history, yet their role is not always well-understood or valued. Understanding the factors which contribute to career success for clinical academics is critical for supporting this workforce. Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) provides a conceptual framework for career success, incorporating personal and environmental factors.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to explore clinical academics' construal of successful clinical academic practice and to contribute to a holistic view of the professional identity of the clinical academic.

METHODOLOGY

Using a constructivist technique, repertory grid, the authors interviewed ten clinical academics at different career stages in one-to-one structured interviews conducted virtually between November 2020 and April 2021. Data from the interviews were analysed qualitatively and quantitatively. Common themes were identified, analysed, and ranked according to importance with respect to successful clinical academic practice. Using SCCT as a framework, constructs were categorised as personal factors, organisational factors, competencies and person-environment fit. A differential analysis between established/trainee and female/male participants was carried out.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-three constructs were elicited and categorised into 20 themes (constructs). There was consensus among participants that 6 were of high importance with respect to successful clinical academic practice, 8 of intermediate and 4 of low importance, with no consensus on 2 constructs. Personal factors of high importance include innovation and integrity. Competencies including research and teaching skills are highly important, and ability to collaborate is also considered central to successful clinical academic practice. Female participants expressed greater concerns about the impact of familial responsibilities on career progression.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the importance of interactions between the person and environment, and characterises the important attributes of successful clinical academics including personal factors such as integrity and innovation.

Clinician-Scientist Faculty Mentoring Program (FAME) - A New Inclusive Training Model at Penn State Increases Scholarly Productivity and Extramural Grant Funding

PURPOSE

Clinician-scientists have a high attrition rate at the junior-faculty level, before they gain independent funding. We identified the lack of skill set, clinician-scientist community and collaboration between clinician-scientists and clinicians with predominantly clinical duties, as key problems in our medium-size college of medicine.

METHODS

We designed a novel two-year educational program, the Clinician-scientist Faculty Mentoring program (FAME) specifically to target junior clinician-scientists. The program enrollment included both lab-based, "traditional" and "non-traditional" clinician-scientists, with predominantly clinical duties and limited time for research. The curriculum included the novel educational tools: Emerging technology seminars and mentored work-in-progress research seminars, integrated with mock grant review.

RESULTS

The first class enrolled 17 clinician-scientists with diverse clinical subspecialty, previous research training, and protected research time. After two years in the program, the self-assessment of FAME scholars demonstrated strong improvement in grantsmanship skills, career development, emerging technologies, and the sense of community and collaboration. Compared to the period before initiating FAME, scholars increased annual scholarly output by 65% and new extramural funding by >20-fold ($0.189 vs $4.0 million) following completion of FAME. The "traditional" clinician-scientists, who had >50% research time, increased new extramural funding by ~25-fold ($0.134 vs $3.336 million), whereas "non-traditional" clinician-scientists who had ≤50% research time increased new extramural funding by >13-fold.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that a training program tailored specifically to clinician-scientists leads to increased scholarly productivity and grant funding regardless of research background. Implementing this type of training program nationally, with inclusion of clinician-scientists with various amounts of protected time for research, will help both "traditional" and "non-traditional" clinician-scientists to obtain a substantial independent extramural funding, fulfill their scholarly potential, and enhance their sense of community. Our model would be particularly useful for small-to-medium sized academic institutions, who have a limited clinician-scientist workforce facing competing health care system needs.

Early Outcomes of a New NIH Program to Support Research in Residency

The work of physician-investigators has historically led to key discoveries and developments in modern medicine, but recent decades have seen significant declines in the number of U.S. physician-investigators. One of the barriers to physicians participating in research is the lack of mentored research opportunities during clinical training, especially during residency training. In response to this identified barrier and to expand the physician-investigator workforce, the National Institutes of Health initiated the R38 program, known as Stimulating Access to Research in Residency, to support mentored research opportunities for residents. This article reports on the early outcomes of the recipients of the initial round of R38 awards, granted in 2018. Early positive outcomes include increases in the reported likelihood of resident-investigators pursuing physician-investigator careers, greater reported clarity in resident-investigators' research directions, the commitment of additional institutional resources to support the R38-awarded programs, and the approval of resident-investigators as having met training requirements for certification by multiple medical boards.

Clinical research capability enhanced for medical undergraduates: an innovative simulation-based clinical research curriculum development

BACKGROUND

Clinical research has frequently not been taught in a practical way, often resulting in a very didactic approach rendering it not very accessible for medical undergraduates. Simulation can provide an immersive, interactive, and reflective experience and may be applied to the clinical research curriculum.

METHODS

A 7-step model, modified from Kern's six-step approach and Khamis's stepwise model, was used to develop the curriculum. A questionnaire survey on undergraduates' attitude towards, knowledge and practice of clinical research and simulation education was conducted to generate a targeted needs assessment. The simulation framework was integrated into the development of educational strategies. Experts were consulted to assess the curriculum prior to implementation.

RESULTS

Talent construction in China needs an innovative capability-enhanced clinical research curriculum. Sixty-six clinical undergraduates in our school completed the survey. 89.39% (59/66) of them hadn't participated in clinical research, while 93.94% (62/66) would like to conduct clinical trials if possible. 75.76% of respondents didn't have knowledge of or practical abilities in clinical trials. The mean score for practical ability (2.02 ± 0.92) was lower than that of knowledge (2.20 ± 0.93) (P < 0.01). The dimension of case report form got the lowest score among the five dimensions. Participating in clinical research (P = 0.04) and learning for themselves (P < 0.01) by a few students may have increased the total score. The curriculum was designed to simulate the whole process from protocol writing, registration, ethical approval, implementation, and data analysis to reporting based on one case study, and was divided into two parts to simulate different types of research: randomized controlled trials and observational studies. It was conducted in semesters 5 and 7 respectively, both including 16 sessions. After expert consultation, one session having a 29.01% coefficient of variation was adjusted and replaced. The final simulation class design scenario scripts are provided for reference.

CONCLUSIONS

The targeted needs assessment exposed medical undergraduates' poor knowledge of and abilities in clinical research. This is the first report of a simulation-based clinical research curriculum developed in China, and adds curriculum development and design details to the limited related published studies.

The Drug Abuse Research Training (DART) Program for Psychiatry Residents and Summer Fellows: 15-Year Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To increase the number of physician-scientists in research, the Drug Abuse Research Training (DART) program at the Medical University of South Carolina offers a 2-year research track for psychiatry residents and a 10-week summer fellowship for students. The goal of this study was to examine program outcomes and alumni diversity levels over DART's 15-year history.

METHODS

To date, 215 trainees (44 residents, 171 summer fellows) have completed the program. An anonymous online survey was sent to the 143 program alumni with valid contact information. Survey data included demographic characteristics, post-program research involvement, and self-reported barriers to continued research engagement.

RESULTS

Overall survey completion response was 83.5% (N = 122). The alumni included 59.0% women, and 36.1% of respondents identified as a member of a minority racial/ethnic group. Following program completion, 77.0% of the alumni reported continued research involvement. More than half of the alumni reported scientific publications (57.4%) and conference presentations (63.1%) since completing DART. Among respondents who did not subsequently engage in research, the most common modifiable barriers included difficulty finding a mentor, self-perceived deficits in statistical skills and research methodology, and overall lack of confidence in research ability.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past 15 years, the DART program has established a diverse research training program that now spans the educational spectrum from undergraduate to residency training. Future program goals include additional training to address self-reported modifiable research barriers. This program provides a model for other training programs designed to cultivate research interests and promote the diversity of clinical researchers.

Disparities in Gender and Race Among Physician-Scientists: A Call to Action and Strategic Recommendations

The size of the physician-scientist workforce has declined for the past 3 decades, which raises significant concerns for the future of biomedical research. There is also a considerable gender disparity among physician-scientists. This disparity is exacerbated by race, resulting in a compounding effect for women of color. Proposed reasons for this disparity include the time and expense physicians must devote to obtaining specialized research training after residency while at the same time burdened with mounting medical school debt and domestic and caretaking responsibilities, which are disproportionately shouldered by women. These circumstances may contribute to the overall gender disparity in research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Women apply for NIH grants less often than men and are therefore less likely to receive an NIH grant. However, when women do apply for NIH grants, their funding success is comparable with that of men. Increasing representation of women and groups underrepresented in medicine (UIM) requires not only improving the pipeline (e.g., through training) but also assisting early- and midcareer women-and especially women who are UIM-to advance. In this article, the authors propose the following solutions to address the challenges women and other UIM individuals face at each of these career stages: developing specific NIH research training programs targeted to women and UIM individuals in medical school and residency; creating institutional and individual grant initiatives; increasing student loan forgiveness; setting up robust institutional mentorship programs for individuals seeking to obtain independent funding; providing childcare stipends as part of NIH grants; and instituting an NIH requirement that funded investigators participate in efforts to increase diversity in the physician-scientist workforce. Enabling more women and UIM individuals to enter and thrive in the physician-scientist workforce will increase the size and diversity of this critical component of biomedical research.

Challenges of senior 8-year-program medical students' scientific research in China: A multicenter questionnaire-based study

Among the diverse medical education systems in China, the 8-year program is dedicated to cultivating physician scientists. Although the research ability of senior students in 8-year medical programs is a pivotal quality, it remains unclear. This study aimed to clarify the current status and challenges of students' research experience, abilities, and outputs.A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted in 5 medical schools in northern China. Electronic questionnaires were sent to 235 randomly chosen fifth-grade or sixth-grade 8-year-program medical students. A total of 211 responses were collected and analyzed using SPSS 22.0.Only 13.3% of participants chose research as their future career goal. Students generally felt that conducting research was stressful and difficult. The greatest obstacle was a lack of time due to heavy workloads. The 2 major motivations for research were graduation and/or future employment (75.8%) and research interest (24.2%). More than half of the students (142, 67.3%) had research experience by the time of the survey, among whom 84 students already had research outputs. A higher proportion of students with outputs was motivated by the requirements for graduation or employment compared to students without outputs (71.4% vs 55.2%, P  =  .046).Senior 8-year-program medical students in China generally had high pressure to conduct research and devoted their efforts to overcome these challenges. More guidance and novel encouragement to enhance students' initiative and interest in research could be provided by medical schools and educators in the future.

A comparative study of PhD and DNP nurses in an integrated health care system

BACKGROUND

A vast literature exists on doctorally-prepared RNs in academia, but little is known about those in practice settings.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to explore demographic, educational, and employment characteristics, as well as practice patterns and professional accomplishments of doctorally-prepared RNs in one practice setting.

METHODS

Survey of approximately 100 doctorally-prepared RNs in an integrated health system were surveyed.

DISCUSSION

Doctors of Nursing Practice (DNPs) outnumber PhDs three to one in the institution. Several statistically significant differences exist between them: DNPs are younger and most likely hold advanced practice nursing positions; PhDs are 10 years older and more likely hold administrative or leadership positions. Little evidence exists that neither nurses nor administrators understand the skills and knowledge that doctorally-prepared RNs bring to the organization. This is particularly true for DNPs who predominantly hold clinical positions also held by master's-prepared RNs.

CONCLUSION

Advocates for continued growth of DNPs in academia and practice should partner more closely to clarify the skills and talents that doctorally-prepared nurses bring to clinical settings.

Immigrant Neurologists in the Physician-Scientist Pipeline: An Intervenable Stenosis

Immigrant neurologists on a visa make up one-fourth of our neurology resident workforce. In this article, we describe the challenges faced by them in pursuit of a career as physician-scientists. We highlight the key role that immigration status plays in various aspects of research advancement early along the neurology pipeline, pertaining to clinical career decisions and the associated delay in achieving these milestones. We conclude with a call to action to address these key roadblocks, which would have the additional potential benefit of improving inclusion and diversity in clinical and translational science. ANN NEUROL 2021.

Physician-scientist or basic scientist? Exploring the nature of clinicians' research engagement

Theoretical understanding of what motivates clinician researchers has met with some success in launching research careers, but it does not account for professional identification as a factor determining sustained research engagement over the long-term. Deeper understanding of clinicians' research-related motivation may better foster their sustained research engagement post-training and, by extension, the advancement of medicine and health outcomes. This study used an integrated theoretical framework (Social Cognitive Career Theory and Professional Identity Formation) and appreciative inquiry to explore the interplay of professional identification and research context in shaping post-training research success narratives. To foreground professional identification, 19 research-active clinicians and 17 basic scientists served as interviewees. A multi-institutional, multi-national design was used to explore how contextual factors shape external valuation of research success. The findings suggest that research-active clinicians do not identify as the career scientists implied by the modern physician-scientist construct and the goal of many clinician research-training programs. Their primary identification as care providers shapes their definition of research success around extending their clinical impact; institutional expectations and prevailing healthcare concerns that value this aim facilitate their sustained research engagement. Integrated developmental and organizational interventions adaptive to research context and conducive to a wider range of medical inquiry may better leverage clinicians' direct involvement in patient care and advance progress toward human health and well-being.

MD-PhD Program Graduates' Engagement in Research: Results of a National Study

PURPOSE

To determine if specialty, among other professional development and demographic variables, predicted MD-PhD program graduates' research engagement.

METHOD

The authors merged the 2015 Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) National MD-PhD Program Outcomes Survey database with selected data from the AAMC Student Records System, Graduation Questionnaire, and Graduate Medical Education (GME) Track Resident Survey. At the person level, they tested variables of interest for independent associations with MD-PhD graduates' research engagement using chi-square, Pearson correlations, and analysis of variance tests and logistic and linear regressions.

RESULTS

Of 3,297 MD-PhD graduates from 1991-2010 who were no longer in GME training in 2015, 78.0% (2,572/3,297) reported research engagement. In models controlling for several variables, a neurology (vs internal medicine; adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 2.48; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.60-3.86) or pathology (vs internal medicine; AOR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.33-2.68) specialty, full-time faculty/research scientist career intention at graduation (vs all other career intentions; AOR: 3.04; 95% CI: 2.16-4.28), and ≥ 1 year of GME research (vs no GME research year[s]; AOR: 2.45; 95% CI: 1.96-3.06) predicted a greater likelihood of research engagement. Among graduates engaged in research, the mean percentage of research time was 49.9% (standard deviation 30.1%). Participation in ≥ 1 year of GME research (beta [β] coefficient: 7.99, P < .001) predicted a higher percentage of research time, whereas a radiation oncology (β: -28.70), diagnostic radiology (β: -32.92), or surgery (β: -29.61) specialty, among others, predicted a lower percentage of research time (each P < .001 vs internal medicine).

CONCLUSIONS

Most MD-PhD graduates were engaged in research, but the extent of their engagement varied substantially among specialties. Across specialties, participation in research during GME may be one factor that sustains MD-PhD graduates' subsequent early- to midcareer research engagement.

The Physician-Investigator Workforce: Looking Ahead

Support of the U.S. health professions investigator workforce is critically important to the continued advancement of health care nationally. Physician-investigators comprise one segment of this health professions investigator workforce, which also includes investigators in the nursing, pharmacy, and dentistry professions, and others. Among physician health professionals in particular, the term "physician-investigator" has been described as encompassing physicians engaged in research in various ways including "clinical researchers" (physicians with clinical duties who do clinical, patient-centered research), "clinician-scientists" (physicians with clinical roles who perform research in laboratories or using computational tools), and "physician-scientists" (physicians focused on research with little or no clinical activity). Broadly defined, physician-investigators are included in various groups of researchers described in several articles recently published in Academic Medicine; these articles provide details on a range of approaches, with supporting outcomes data, being taken to train, support, and retain physicians in the health professions investigator workforce. The authors of this commentary examine selected literature, including several articles in this issue among others, along with Association of American Medical Colleges data, to offer observations about programs that train physician-investigators. Evidence-informed single-program approaches for early-career researchers can sustain continued research interest and foster the career development of the emerging physician-investigator workforce. Collaborative multi-institutional approaches offer the benefit of multisite work to power outcomes studies and to increase generalizability beyond a specific institutional program. System-wide institutional approaches may be particularly critical in supporting physician-investigators across all career stages. Although the articles discussed in this commentary are largely (although not exclusively) focused on various initiatives and programs designed to develop and sustain the physician-investigator workforce, such initiatives and programs may have value in addressing shared challenges of developing, supporting, and retaining the broader investigator workforce across all health professions.

Training methods that improve MD-PhD student self-efficacy for clinical research skills

Introduction:

MD-PhD training programs train physician-scientists to pursue careers involving both clinical care and research, but decreasing numbers of physician-scientists stay engaged in clinical research. We sought to identify current clinical research training methods utilized by MD–PhD programs and to assess how effective they are in promoting self-efficacy for clinical research.

Methods:

The US MD–PhD students were surveyed in April–May 2018. Students identified the clinical research training methods they participated in, and self-efficacy in clinical research was determined using a modified 12-item Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory.

Results:

Responses were received from 61 of 108 MD–PhD institutions. Responses were obtained from 647 MD–PhD students in all years of training. The primary methods of clinical research training included no clinical research training, and various combinations of didactics, mentored clinical research, and a clinical research practicum. Students with didactics plus mentored clinical research had similar self-efficacy as those with didactics plus clinical research practicum. Training activities that differentiated students who did and did not have the clinical research practicum experience and were associated with higher self-efficacy included exposure to Institutional Review Boards and participation in human subject recruitment.

Conclusions:

A clinical research practicum was found to be an effective option for MD–PhD students conducting basic science research to gain experience in clinical research skills. Clinical research self-efficacy was correlated with the amount of clinical research training and specific clinical research tasks, which may inform curriculum development for a variety of clinical and translational research training programs, for example, MD–PhD, TL1, and KL2.