Curricula, Teaching Methods, and Success Metrics of Clinician-Scientist Training Programs: A Scoping Review

"Luck of the draw really": a qualitative exploration of Australian trainee doctors' experiences of mandatory research

BACKGROUND

Many medical trainees, prior to achieving specialist status, are required to complete a mandatory research project, the usefulness of which has been debated. The aim of this study was to gain an in-depth understanding of trainees' experiences and satisfaction of conducting such research projects in Australia.

METHODS

A qualitative descriptive approach was used. Semi-structured interviews with trainees were undertaken between May 2021 and June 2022. Australian medical trainees who had completed a research project as part of specialty training within the past five years were invited to participate. The purposive sample was drawn from participants in a survey on the same topic who had indicated interest in participating in an interview. Interviews explored trainees' overall experience of and satisfaction with conducting research projects, as well as their perceptions of research training, support, barriers, enablers, and perceived benefits. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Sixteen medical doctors from seven medical colleges were interviewed. Trainee experience and satisfaction was highly variable between participants and was shaped by four factors: 1) trainees entered their specialty training with their own perspectives on the value and purpose of the research project, informed by their previous experiences with research and perceived importance of research in their planned career path; 2) in conducting the project, enablers including protected time, supervisor support and institutional structures, were vital to shaping their experience; 3) trainees' access to these enablers was variable, mediated by a combination of luck, and the trainees' own drive and research skill; and 4) project outcomes, in terms of research merit, learning, career benefits and impacts on patient care.

CONCLUSIONS

Trainee experiences of doing research were mixed, with positive experiences often attributed to chance rather than an intentionally structured learning experience. We believe alternatives to mandatory trainee research projects must be explored, including recognising other forms of research learning activities, and directing scarce resources to supporting the few trainees who plan to pursue clinician researcher careers.

Igniting the Fire of Discovery: Creating Partnerships Between Research, Education, and Practice

In the 28th H.P. Maley Lecture, Stacey Dusing, PT, PhD, FAPTA, shares a perspective on the importance of clinician-scientists in bridging the chasm that currently exists between scholarship and clinical practice. Describing herself as a clinician-scientist, or a qualified health care professional who functions mainly as a career scientist with the other portion of time dedicated to clinical practice, Dusing highlights the potential impact of limited training for clinician-scientists in the physical therapist profession and its impact on the future of physical therapy. She challenges all physical therapists to consider the impact of Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education requirements on scholarship and the lack of requirement for clinical practice while also recognizing that training programs for clinician-scientists are quite limited. Reviewing some historical data and highlighting possible areas for growth, Dusing calls physical therapists to action in 4 areas. This paper calls all physical therapists, especially educators and administrators, to consider the role of clinician-scientist in promoting physical therapy and knowledge translation. The author challenges the profession to consider whether we are helping to train or embed clinician-scientists in our clinical workplaces to promote knowledge translation. Suggestions are made to improve research and clinical training programs to increase the number of clinician-scientists in physical therapy.

Identifying meta-research with researchers as study subjects: Protocol for a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Meta-research in which researchers are the study subjects can illuminate how to better support researchers and enhance the development of research capacity. Comprehensively compiling the literature in this area can help define best practices for research capacity development and reveal gaps in the literature. However, there are challenges to assessing and synthesizing the breadth of the meta-research literature produced.

METHODS

In this article, we discuss the current barriers to conducting literature reviews on meta-research and strategies to address these barriers. We then outline proposed methods for conducting a scoping review on meta-research with researchers as study subjects.

DISCUSSION

Due to its interdisciplinary nature, broad scope, and difficult to pinpoint terminology, little is known about the state of meta-research with researchers as the study subjects. For this reason, there is a need for a scoping review that will identify research performed in which researchers were the study subjects.

Reproductive Scientist Development Program: Bridging the Gap to the Physician Scientist Career

Career development awards are a successful strategy to facilitate the advancement of physician-scientists trained in obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) toward a path of investigative independence. While these funding mechanisms can be effective approaches to developing the career of future OBGYN scientists, optimizing the probability of obtaining these awards requires determining the appropriate career development award for the applicant. There are many details and opportunities that need to be considered when deciding on the appropriate award. Some of the most sought-after awards are those that integrate career development and applied research, such as the K-series awards supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). A quintessential example of an NIH-funded mentor-based career development award to support the scientific training of an OBGYN physician-scientist is the Reproductive Scientist Development Program (RSDP). In this study, we provide data on the academic achievements of past and present RSDP scholars and discuss the structure, impact, and future of the RSDP, a federally funded K12 program dedicated to women's health for OBGYN scientific investigators. As healthcare is changing and physician-scientists comprise a unique and valuable part of the biomedical workforce, programs such as the RSDP are critical to maintaining a well-trained pipeline of OBGYN scientists to maintain and challenge the leading edge of medicine, science, and biology.

Equity, diversity and inclusion of pediatric clinician-scientists in Canada: a thematic analysis

BACKGROUND

Underrepresented voices and perspectives are missing from academic and clinical health sciences. We aimed to define the unique opportunities and challenges of pediatric clinician-scientists related to equity, diversity and inclusion; and to identify key components of training needed to support people from equity-seeking groups as emerging and early-career pediatric clinician-scientists to generate diverse health research leaders in knowledge generation, implementation and translation.

METHODS

Using a qualitative descriptive approach, we examined the experiences of clinician stakeholders. Semistructured interviews were conducted with pediatric clinician-scientist stakeholders. Thematic analysis was performed.

RESULTS

We interviewed a total of 39 individuals. Our analysis resulted in 4 interrelated themes: the pervasiveness and invisibility of sexism; the invisibility and visibility of racism; proposed individual-level solutions to the sexism and racism; and proposed institutional and system-level changes to address the porous and leaky pipeline. These themes acknowledged that, ultimately, system change is required for addressing equity, diversity and inclusion in clinical and academic training environments.

INTERPRETATION

These findings highlight the importance of addressing systemic biases that limit the inclusion of women and racialized individuals in pediatric clinician-scientist careers. Further research is needed to explore the problem of exclusion, which will, in turn, inform education of pediatric clinician-scientists and inform better ways to promote equity, diversity and inclusivity; these steps are needed to foster systemic change in the cultures that perpetuate exclusivity in both academic and clinical communities.