Building Research Programs in Diagnostic Radiology Part II. Basic Research

Evaluating the Outcomes and Trainee Performance of a Canadian Medical Imaging Clinician Investigator Program

Purpose: To measure the research productivity of trainees from the University of Toronto's Medical Imaging Clinician Investigator Program (MI-CIP) and comparing it with the research productivity of trainees from MI-non-CIP and General Surgery (GSx) Clinician Investigator Program. Methods: We identified residents who completed an MI-CIP, MI-non-CIP and GSx-CIP from 2006-2016. In each group of trainees, we assessed 3 research productivity outcomes with non-parametric tests before residency and at 7 years post-CIP completion/post-graduation. Research productivity outcomes include the number of total publications, the number of first-author publications, and the publication's average journal impact factor (IF). Results: We identified 11 MI-CIP trainees (male/female: 9 [82%]/2 [18%]), 74 MI-non-CIP trainees (46 [62%]/28 [38%]) and 41 GSx-CIP trainees (23 [56%]/18 [44%]). MI-CIP trainees had statistically significant higher research productivity than MI-non-CIP in all measured outcomes. The median (interquartile range, IQR) number of total publications of MI-CIP vs MI-non-CIP trainees was 5.0 (8.0) vs 1.0 (2.0) before residency and 6.0 (10.0) vs .0 (2.0) at 7 years post-CIP completion/post-graduation. The median (IQR) first-author publications of MI-CIP vs MI-non-CIP trainees was 2.0 (3.0) vs .0 (1.0) before residency and 2.0 (4.0) vs (.0) (1.0) at 7 years post-CIP completion/post-graduation. The median (IQR) average journal IF of MI-CIP vs MI-non-CIP trainees was 3.2 (2.0) vs .3 (2.4) before residency and 3.9 (3.2) vs .0 (2.6) at 7 years post-CIP completion/post-graduation. Between MI-CIP and GSx-CIP trainees, there were no significant differences in research productivity in all measured outcomes. Conclusion: MI-CIP trainees actively conducted research after graduation. These trainees demonstrated early research engagement before residency. The similar research productivity of MI-CIP vs GSx-CIP trainees shows initial success of MI-CIP trainees.

Barriers to Resident Research in Radiology: A Canadian Perspective

PURPOSE

The study sought to identify and characterise barriers to research for Canadian diagnostic radiology residents and suggest potential solutions to enhance future research success.

METHODS

Institutional research board approval was obtained. Electronic surveys were solicited from all postgraduate year 2-5 diagnostic radiology residents at all 16 programs across Canada. The survey focused on key factors inhibiting research during training.

RESULTS

Of all 400 Canadian diagnostic radiology residents, 88 (22%) responded. Of respondents, 86% reported research experience before residency, with 19% holding a nonphysician graduate degree. All indicated that research was a requirement for completion of their residency. The most important reported factors limiting resident research were time constraints (67%), personal disinterest (32%), and inadequate mentorship (32%). Although 44% reported dedicated residency program research training, 40% reported no such opportunities. Among the various time constraints, respondents cited studying demands (61%), on-call demands (52%), and daily clinical duties (38%) as strong or significant barriers to research. Most (63%) indicated their program provided at least some protected research time, but 21% were not aware of such protected time availability. When available, protected research time was modest, and ranged from 0.5 days/month to 3 months, with the majority of respondents citing 1 month of protected research time.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic radiology residents in Canada report numerous barriers to research. Programs seeking to enhance radiology research should focus on providing appropriate training, protected time, and mentorship.