The national MD-PhD program outcomes study: Relationships between medical specialty, training duration, research effort, and career paths

Do We Need More Structured MD Thesis Programs? A Propensity Score Matched Analysis of the Research Program at the Medical Faculty Dresden

Introduction

Conducting a Medical Doctorate (MD) thesis is desired by the majority of medical students. However, the needed scientific competencies are not regularly implemented in medical education. To support students during their MD thesis, a graduate college was implemented. The present study aims to investigate the impact of this structured MD thesis program on the outcome of the MD thesis and the further scientific career.

Methods

An online survey covering 59 items was distributed to all current and former medical students who officially started their MD thesis from 2011 to 2022. The survey investigated the impact of the structured MD thesis program on the scientific development of participating students compared to students outside the structured program.

Results

Based on a total of 370 complete answers, the analysis indicated that participants of the structured program have a significantly better outcome of their MD thesis compared to the control cohort based on objective parameters such as the thesis grade, the number of first-author publications, attendance of congresses, and the number of rewards. Additionally, participation in the program led to a more sustainable integration of students into research measured by the participation or pursuit of clinician scientist programs. Propensity score matched analyses of 60 participants confirmed the results.

Conclusion

Participation in a structured MD thesis program significantly improved the outcome and may support sustainable integration into research. Therefore, the implementation of such programs should be further expanded to secure the education of scientifically trained MD graduates.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-024-02077-x.

Qualitative evaluation of a multidisciplinary master of cancer sciences: impacts on graduates and influencing curricular factors

BACKGROUND

Evaluations of continuing professional development programs typically focus on short-term knowledge and skill acquisition. There is a need for more comprehensive program evaluation methods that assess a broader range of impacts and can elicit how and why these outcomes occurred. We conducted a qualitative study to investigate the impacts of a multidisciplinary, online health professional postgraduate degree and to gain insights into the factors that led to these impacts.

METHODS

Participants were graduates of the University of Melbourne's Master of Cancer Sciences who could participate in an online interview. Semi-structured, qualitative interviews were conducted exploring a broad range of impacts, including changes in professional practice and career trajectory since graduation, and how the degree influenced these impacts. Data were analysed inductively.

RESULTS

Fifteen participants (female: 80%, 31-50 years old: 67%) from a range of professions were interviewed. A number of major themes were uncovered. Impacts on career trajectory included expanded career horizons (e.g. increased role diversity and complexity), and increased confidence in their professional identity. Impacts on professional practice included individual improvements in patient care and research, as well as changes in organisational practice. Factors identified as leading to these impacts were: (i) active, interactive and interprofessional learning; (ii) networking, informal mentoring, and role-modelling; and (iii) support at multiple levels.

CONCLUSION

This study provides preliminary evidence of the positive impact of a Master of Cancer Sciences on graduate career trajectory and professional practice. In addition, the inductive methodology enabled identification of the curricular features (both planned and emergent) that influenced these impacts, facilitating potential transferability of learnings to other teaching programs.

By suppressing its MD-PhD fellowship programme, the Swiss National Science Foundation reduces the attractiveness of the physician-scientist career path

No abstract available.

Assessment of Student Perceptions of Aspects of a Career in Radiation Oncology

PURPOSE

To determine medical students' views of various aspects of a career in radiation oncology (RO) to identify areas that may benefit from reform and to guide initiatives to stimulate broader and more diverse student interest in the specialty.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

An electronic survey was sent to student oncology interest group members at seven US medical schools. The survey asked students to rate 19 aspects of RO on a 5-point bipolar Likert-type scale. Descriptive statistics are reported, along with subgroup analyses based on participants' demographics.

RESULTS

The response rate was 51.1% (n = 275 of 538). The most favorably rated aspects of RO were outpatient working hours (mean ± SD Likert-type rating of 4.51 ± 0.82), routinely working with other physicians (4.45 ± 0.76), and use of advanced technology to treat patients. The most unfavorably rated aspects of RO were less geographic flexibility for residency or employment (1.98 ± 1.04), spending a lot of time on a computer doing treatment planning (2.80 ± 1.21), and having a job that is not well understood by most doctors and the general public (2.89 ± 1.02). Gender was associated with significant differences in 8 of 19 questions in how each aspect of RO was viewed. Few differences were observed based on race or ethnicity, though Asian participants had a significantly more favorable view of RO being a more science-oriented specialty compared with White or underrepresented students, respectively (3.50 versus 3.21 versus 2.84, P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings inform the RO community in the development of more effective initiatives to encourage students to fully explore the specialty.

Dispelling the myth: comparable duration and impact of research training for MD-PhD and PhD graduates

The average time to degree for completing a life sciences PhD in the United States is longer for single-degree than dual-degree trainees, supporting a perception that the PhD training of MD-PhDs is less rigorous or fulsome. To determine whether degree format influences the duration and impact of graduate training, we analyzed data for the 2011-2016 graduates of 3 Harvard Medical School PhD programs. Linear mixed effects models were used to determine the association between degree type (MD-PhD vs. PhD) and research outcomes, including time to degree, time to thesis defense, and publications submitted during the PhD. Although pursuing an MD-PhD was associated with a 1.5-year shorter time to PhD degree, basing this calculation on the official PhD period does not account for completion of early PhD requirements, including research rotations and qualifying coursework, during the first 2 years of medical school. There was no association between degree format and total number of first-author or overall publications, though pursuing a dual degree was associated with increased impact metrics of published papers. The results highlight that despite the seemingly shorter PhD durations of MD-PhD graduates based on graduate program enrollment period, research training is on par with their single-degree peers, rendering MD-PhD graduates well equipped to become successful scientific investigators.

The Road Well Traveled: Making Choices, Ensuring Progress While Heeding the "Clarion Call"

The career path of everyone is quite unique based on the goals and the choices we make, and success can take time to unfold. My career choices have been greatly influenced by remarkable mentors and opportunities. Reciprocally I have had the pleasure, as a faculty member, department chair, and medical school dean to mentor promising young physicians and scientists to launch successful careers. We need to continue to attract physicians and scientists to academic medicine to ensure that our field continues to innovate and improve the lives of our patients. To influence positive change, we must stay relentlessly focused and have faith that success will come.

Training Outcomes and Satisfaction in Canadian MD/PhD and MD/MSc Programs: Findings from a National Survey

PURPOSE

Despite the impact of physician-scientists on scientific discovery and translational medicine, several reports have signalled their declining workforce, reduced funding, and insufficient protected research time. Given the paucity of outcome data on Canadian MD/PhD programs, this study presents a national portrait of the sociodemographic characteristics, training trajectories, productivity, and satisfaction in trainees and alumni from Canadian MD/PhD and MD/MSc programs.

METHODS

Quantitative data were collected in a national survey launched in 2021. Respondents included 74 MD/PhD alumni and 121 trainees across 12 Canadian MD/PhD and MD/MSc programs.

RESULTS

Among MD/PhD alumni, 51% were independent practitioners/researchers while others underwent residency training. Most trainees (88%) were in MD/PhD programs. Significantly more alumni identified as men than did trainees. Significantly more alumni conducted clinical and health services research, while more trainees conducted basic science research. Average time to MD/PhD completion was 8 years, with no correlation to subsequent research outcomes. Self-reported research productivity was highest during MD/PhD training. Concerning training trajectories, most alumni completed residency, pursued additional training, and practised in Canada. Finally, regression models showed that trainees and alumni were satisfied with programs, with significant moderators in trainee models.

CONCLUSION

Survey findings showed Canadian MD/PhD and MD/MSc programs recruit more diverse cohorts of trainees than before, provide productive research years, and graduate alumni who pursue training and academic employment in Canada. Both alumni and trainees are largely satisfied with these training programs. The need to collect in-depth longitudinal data on Canadian MD/PhD graduates to monitor diversity and success metrics is discussed.

Is it time to reduce the length of postgraduate training for physician-scientists in internal medicine?

Physician-scientists play a crucial role in advancing medical knowledge and patient care, yet the long periods of time required to complete training may impede expansion of this workforce. We examined the relationship between postgraduate training and time to receipt of NIH or Veterans Affairs career development awards (CDAs) for physician-scientists in internal medicine. Data from NIH RePORTER were analyzed for internal medicine residency graduates who received specific CDAs (K08, K23, K99, or IK2) in 2022. Additionally, information on degrees and training duration was collected. Internal medicine residency graduates constituted 19% of K awardees and 28% of IK2 awardees. Of MD-PhD internal medicine-trained graduates who received a K award, 92% received a K08 award; of MD-only graduates who received a K award, a majority received a K23 award. The median time from medical school graduation to CDA was 9.6 years for K awardees and 10.2 years for IK2 awardees. The time from medical school graduation to K or IK2 award was shorter for US MD-PhD graduates than US MD-only graduates. We propose that the time from medical school graduation to receipt of CDAs must be shortened to accelerate training and retention of physician-scientists.

The National MD-PhD Program Outcomes Study: career paths followed by Black and Hispanic graduates

Previous studies on attrition from MD-PhD programs have shown that students who self-identify as Black are more likely to withdraw before graduating than Hispanic students and students not from groups underrepresented in medicine (non-UIM). Here, we analyzed data collected for the National MD-PhD Program Outcomes Study, a national effort to track the careers of over 10,000 individuals who have graduated from MD-PhD programs over the past 60 years. On average, Black trainees took slightly longer to graduate, were less likely to choose careers in academia, and were more likely to enter nonacademic clinical practice; although, none of these differences were large. Black graduates were also more likely to choose careers in surgery or internal medicine, or entirely forego residency, and less likely to choose pediatrics, pathology, or neurology. Among those in academia, average research effort rates self-reported by Black, Hispanic, and non-UIM alumni were indistinguishable, as were rates of obtaining research grants and mentored training awards. However, the proportion of Black and Hispanic alumni who reported having NIH research grants was lower than that of non-UIM alumni, and the NIH career development to research project grant (K-to-R) conversion rate was lower for Black alumni. We propose that the reasons for these differences reflect experiences before, during, and after training and, therefore, conclude with action items that address each of these stages.

A Call to Action: Urgently Strengthening the Future Physician-Scientist Workforce in Infectious Diseases

Infectious diseases (ID) research is vital for global public health, typically led by physician-scientists. This Perspective addresses challenges in the ID workforce and suggests solutions. Physician-scientists have made key discoveries that have significantly impacted human health. The importance of ID research in understanding diseases, leading to treatments and vaccines, is emphasized, along with the need to address persistent and new infections, antimicrobial resistance, and threats like HIV and influenza. The paper analyzes the physician-scientist workforce's struggles, including funding, training, and research-practice integration gaps. We suggest increased funding, better training, and mentorship, more collaborative and interdisciplinary research, and improved recognition systems. The article stresses the urgency of supporting physician-scientists in ID, advocating for proactive prevention and preparedness, and calls for immediate action to enhance ID research and care.

Fixing the leaky physician-scientist pipeline: Integrated-dedicated research period programs in emergency medicine

Emergency physicians (EPs) are well positioned to perform medical research. EPs are exposed to a wide range of disease types, medical specialties, and treatment modalities. Furthermore, emergency medicine (EM) serves as the safety net for the U.S. health care system. The diverse exposure provides a vast opportunity for EP to perform many worthwhile research projects. Yet, EM has historically had the lowest amount of funding and a lower number of National Institutes of Health-funded research projects. Many suggest the etiology is a "leaky" educational pipeline with loss of many potential physician-scientists over the training and development course. Current research training options for the EM physician-scientist includes MD-PhD, 4-year EM residency program and postresidency fellowships. While each has its advantages and disadvantages, we describe an additional educational alternative of EM physician-scientists, which we have named the integrated-dedicated research period within an EM residency. We describe the features of these programs and preliminary results from the graduates and current trainees.

Artificial intelligence education: An evidence-based medicine approach for consumers, translators, and developers

Current and future healthcare professionals are generally not trained to cope with the proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) technology in healthcare. To design a curriculum that caters to variable baseline knowledge and skills, clinicians may be conceptualized as "consumers", "translators", or "developers". The changes required of medical education because of AI innovation are linked to those brought about by evidence-based medicine (EBM). We outline a core curriculum for AI education of future consumers, translators, and developers, emphasizing the links between AI and EBM, with suggestions for how teaching may be integrated into existing curricula. We consider the key barriers to implementation of AI in the medical curriculum: time, resources, variable interest, and knowledge retention. By improving AI literacy rates and fostering a translator- and developer-enriched workforce, innovation may be accelerated for the benefit of patients and practitioners.

The Anesthesiology Physician-Scientist Pipeline: Current Status and Recommendations for Future Growth-An Initiative of the Anesthesia Research Council

The limited number and diversity of resident physicians pursuing careers as physician-scientists in medicine has been a concern for many decades. The Anesthesia Research Council aimed to address the status of the anesthesiology physician-scientist pipeline, benchmarked against other medical specialties, and to develop strategic recommendations to sustain and expand the number and diversity of anesthesiology physician-scientists. The working group analyzed data from the Association of American Medical Colleges and the National Resident Matching Program to characterize the diversity and number of research-oriented residents from US and international allopathic medical schools entering 11 medical specialties from 2009 to 2019. Two surveys were developed to assess the research culture of anesthesiology departments. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding information awarded to anesthesiology physician-scientists and departments was collected from NIH RePORTER and the Blue Ridge Medical Institute. Anesthesiology ranked eighth to tenth place of 11 medical specialties in the percent of "research-oriented" entering residents, defined as those with advanced degrees (Master's or PhDs) in addition to the MD degree or having published at least 3 research publications before residency. Anesthesiology ranked eighth of 11 specialties in the percent of entering residents who were women but ranked fourth of 11 specialties in the percent of entering residents who self-identified as belonging to an underrepresented group in medicine. There has been a 72% increase in both the total NIH funding awarded to anesthesiology departments and the number of NIH K-series mentored training grants (eg, K08 and K23) awarded to anesthesiology physician-scientists between 2015 and 2020. Recommendations for expanding the size and diversity of the anesthesiology physician-scientist pipeline included (1) developing strategies to increase the number of research intensive anesthesiology departments; (2) unifying the diverse programs among academic anesthesiology foundations and societies that seek to grow research in the specialty; (3) adjusting American Society of Anesthesiologists metrics of success to include the number of anesthesiology physician-scientists with extramural research support; (4) increasing the number of mentored awards from Foundation of Anesthesia Education and Research (FAER) and International Anesthesia Research Society (IARS); (5) supporting an organized and concerted effort to inform research-oriented medical students of the diverse research opportunities within anesthesiology should include the specialty being represented at the annual meetings of Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) students and the American Physician Scientist Association, as well as in institutional MSTP programs. The medical specialty of anesthesiology is defined by new discoveries and contributions to perioperative medicine which will only be sustained by a robust pipeline of anesthesiology physician-scientists.

A course in medical device design & commercialization for medical students pursuing surgical fields

BACKGROUND

The modern surgeon faces an ever-changing landscape of procedural innovation. The demands of present-day healthcare highlight the importance of successfully developing new medical devices and technologies. This effort requires multidisciplinary collaborations of professionals ranging from manufacturers and engineers to researchers and healthcare providers. Surgeons regularly interact with complex equipment and user interfaces without substantial formal education on their design and development. The objective of this study was to ascertain the impact of a 10-week BME course into a medical school curriculum on surgery-bound students' knowledge of product design and gauge their ability to develop an actual product to meet a real need in a surgical field.

METHODS

A Medical Device Design and Commercialization co-enrolled elective course was offered to medical students at a single institution. Five students with an expressed surgical and procedural interest were enrolled. At the beginning of the course, they were tasked with developing a product to meet a clinical need they observed. At the conclusion of the course, students filled out a questionnaire about their level of comfort and knowledge of the material using a 5-point Likert scale. This survey was administered to a control group of medical students who did not take the course.

RESULTS

The BME student cohort was able to successfully identify a post-operative need, develop a prototype of a novel device, and present their product to attending surgeons. A total of 35 survey entries were received: five from the experimental group and 30 from the comparison group. The experimental group scored higher than the comparison group for all survey questions and reached the level of statistical significance in 13 of the 15 questions (p < 0.05). Survey respondents reported similar degrees of knowledge and comfort in recognizing unmet needs in a hospital setting and formulating a comprehensive statement describing them.

CONCLUSION

The principles of biomedical engineering are integral to advancing the field of surgery. Presently, a small cohort of medical students/residents successfully acquired and applied basic BME concepts in a relatively short period of time relative to other training paradigms. Our findings also suggest medical students recognize unmet needs in the hospital setting, and those who completed a BME course felt more able to take steps to meet those needs. Early integration of biomedical engineering principles in medical training may help produce more innovative and well-rounded surgeons.

Does NIH funding differ between medical specialties? A longitudinal analysis of NIH grant data by specialty and type of grant, 2011-2020

OBJECTIVES

Differences in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding between specialties may affect research and patient outcomes in specialties that are less well funded.The aim of this study is to evaluate how NIH funding has been awarded by medical specialty. This study assesses differences and trends in the amount of funding, by medical specialty, for the years 2011-2020, via a retrospective analysis of data from the NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results).

STUDY DESIGN

Longitudinal cross-sectional study SETTING: NIH RePORTER data from 2011 to 2020 for awarded NIH grants (F32, T32, K01, K08, K23, R01, R03, R21, U01, P30) in the following medical specialties: anaesthesiology, dermatology, emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, neurology, neurosurgery, obstetrics and gynaecology, ophthalmology, orthopaedic surgery, otolaryngology, pathology, paediatrics, physical medicine and rehabilitation, plastic surgery, psychiatry, radiation-diagnostic/oncology, surgery, and urology.

PARTICIPANTS

NIH grant awardees for the years 2011-2020 INTERVENTION: None PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The following measures were studied: (1) number of grants by specialty, (2) number of grants per active physician in each specialty, (3) total dollar amount of grants by specialty, (4) total dollar amount of grants per active physician in each specialty and (5) mean dollar amount awarded by specialty for each grant type. We investigated whether any of these measures varied between medical specialties.

RESULTS

In general, internal medicine/medicine, psychiatry, paediatrics, pathology and neurology received the most grants per year, had the highest number of grants per active physician, had the highest total amount of funding and had the highest amount of funding per active physician, whereas fields like emergency medicine, plastic surgery, orthopaedics, and obstetrics and gynaecology had the lowest. The mean dollar amount awarded by grant type differed significantly between specialties (p value less than the Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.00029).

CONCLUSIONS

NIH funding varies significantly between medical specialties. This may affect research progress and the careers of scientists and may affect patient outcomes in less well funded specialties.

A global view of the aspiring physician-scientist

Physician-scientists have epitomized the blending of deep, rigorous impactful curiosity with broad attention to human health for centuries. While we aspire to prepare all physicians with an appreciation for these skills, those who apply them to push the understanding of the boundaries of human physiology and disease, to advance treatments, and to increase our knowledge base in the arena of human health can fulfill an essential space for our society, economies, and overall well-being. Working arm in arm with basic and translational scientists as well as expert clinicians, as peers in both groups, this career additionally serves as a bridge to facilitate the pace and direction of research that ultimately impacts health. Globally, there are remarkable similarities in challenges in this career path, and in the approaches employed to overcome them. Herein, we review how different countries train physician-scientists and suggest strategies to further bolster this career path.

Assessment of clinical continuity strategies offered by dual-degree training programs in the USA

Background

Integration of clinical skills during graduate training in dual-degree programs remains a challenge. The present study investigated the availability and self-perceived efficacy of clinical continuity strategies for dual-degree trainees preparing for clinical training.

Methods

Survey participants were MD/DO-PhD students enrolled in dual-degree-granting institutions in the USA. The response rate was 95% of 73 unique institutions surveyed, representing 56% of the 124 MD-PhD and 7 DO-PhD recognized training programs. Respondents were asked to indicate the availability and self-perceived efficacy of each strategy.

Results

Reported available clinical continuity strategies included clinical volunteering (95.6%), medical grand rounds (86.9%), mentored clinical experiences (84.2%), standardized patients/ practice Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) (70.3%), clinical case reviews (45.9%), clinical journal clubs (38.3%), and preclinical courses/review sessions (37.2%). Trainees rated standardized patients (µ = 6.98 ± 0.356), mentored clinical experiences (µ = 6.94 ± 0.301), clinical skills review sessions (µ = 6.89 ± 0.384), preclinical courses/review sessions (µ = 6.74 ± 0.482), and clinical volunteering (µ = 6.60 ± 0.369), significantly (p < 0.050) higher than clinical case review (µ = 5.34 ± 0.412), clinical journal club (µ = 4.75 ± 0.498), and medicine grand rounds (µ = 4.45 ± 0.377). Further, 84.4% of respondents stated they would be willing to devote at least 0.5-1 hour per week to clinical continuity opportunities during graduate training.

Conclusion

Less than half of the institutions surveyed offered strategies perceived as the most efficacious in preparing trainees for clinical reentry, such as clinical skills review sessions. Broader implementation of these strategies could help better prepare dual-degree students for their return to clinical training.

Le Double Cursus Santé Sciences à l’UFR Santé de Rouen

Le Double Cursus Santé Sciences (DCSS) permet de former précocement les futurs acteurs de santé à la recherche. La profonde transformation du système de santé et l’avènement de nouvelles techniques analytiques et numériques ont conduit à reconsidérer la place de la recherche dans la pratique clinique. L’expérience internationale de ce type de programme de formation, notamment aux États-Unis, a révélé le rôle prépondérant que jouent les acteurs de santé ayant acquis une double compétence, médicale et scientifique. En France, un DCSS précoce, pendant les études médicales, a été mis en place dans les années 2000. Cette formation reste cependant disparate et hétérogène, et ne concerne pas toutes les universités. En 2016, l’UFR Santé de Rouen a constaté que le nombre d’étudiants engagés dans ce double cursus était très faible, voire nul selon les années. Aussi, en 2017, un accompagnement institutionnel a été introduit. Celui-ci a abouti à la création d’un tutorat étudiant dédié à cette formation. Il a permis une augmentation du nombre de candidats intéressés et la reconnaissance institutionnelle de ce double parcours. Nous présentons ici les contours de cette formation impliquant étudiants et institution.

Dental Academic Degrees in Germany Compared to the USA

There are different avenues for obtaining postgraduate doctoral/Ph.D. degrees in Germany and abroad. Depending on their interests and career plans, candidates can choose a postgraduate doctorate/Ph.D. that focuses on a career in academia or a doctorate that does not involve all elements of a Ph.D. and is obtained for the title’s sake. Germany offers this type of diversity and flexibility, whereas the USA postgraduate doctorate model presents a more structured doctorate. The current article provides insight regarding various and more flexible pathways for obtaining a postgraduate doctorate by comparing the German and the American model. The diversity of academic degrees in dentistry and medicine, such as postgraduate doctoral degrees and the higher postdoctoral degrees available in Germany for graduates interested in academia, makes educational evaluation processes and credentials recognition challenging. The lack of transparency and a systematic approach for the academic acknowledgment of the different scientific values of each doctorate type is creating confusion, primarily when German postgraduate doctorate holders pursue academic careers internationally. The current article aims to enhance the knowledge about the different academic degrees and facilitate the educational evaluations, specialty applications, and employment processes. Understanding the additional scientific value of each doctorate type offered in Germany is imperative for their credential recognition internationally.

The Challenges and Opportunities of Translational Pathology

Translational pathology has not caught up with the quality and quantity of translational medicine. Thus, challenges and opportunities related to translational pathology are discussed here. Pathologists should actively participate in reverse translational research that seeks mechanistic insights to explain clinical findings and/or solve clinical problems. Challenges in translational pathology include ambiguity in defining translational pathology, pathologists' mindsets about translational research, lack of sufficient workforce and immature publication outlets. However, with collective wisdom and support of various stakeholders, we can expand the pool of pathologist scientists, build a translational pathology community and drive innovations in medicine through computational, molecular genetic/genomic and digital pathology approaches.

The effect of receiving an award from the American Association for Thoracic Surgery Foundation

Objective

This study's objective was to evaluate the scholastic and career effects of receiving either the American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) Foundation research scholarship or surgical investigator program.

Methods

AATS annual reports and recipient listings were used to generate the awardees. MEDLINE and SCOPUS were used to assess publications, citations, and H-Index for awardees. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) RePorter was used to collate NIH grant awarding to awardees. Publicly available institutional profiles were used to assess promotion status and leadership positions.

Results

Awardees of the research scholarship had a median of 4733 citations and a median H-Index of 33. The surgical investigator program recipients had a median of 1346 citations with a median H-Index of 17. Across both funding mechanisms, 45% secured subsequent NIH funding. Most awardees received an academic promotion, with 62% of the research scholarship awardees promoted to full professor and 37% of the surgical investigator program to associate professor. Approximately half (48%) of all awardees hold leadership positions, with most being a clinical director or division chief.

Conclusions

Receiving the AATS Foundation research scholarship or surgical investigator program positions early-career cardiothoracic surgeons for a promising future in academic surgery.

Training the Next Generation of Clinical Psychological Scientists: A Data-Driven Call to Action

The central goal of clinical psychology is to reduce the suffering caused by mental health conditions. Anxiety, mood, psychosis, substance use, personality, and other mental disorders impose an immense burden on global public health and the economy. Tackling this burden will require the development and dissemination of intervention strategies that are more effective, sustainable, and equitable. Clinical psychology is uniquely poised to serve as a transdisciplinary hub for this work. But rising to this challengerequires an honest reckoning with the strengths and weaknesses of current training practices. Building on new data, we identify the most important challenges to training the next generation of clinical scientists. We provide specific recommendations for the full spectrum of stakeholders-from funders, accreditors, and universities to program directors, faculty, and students-with an emphasis on sustainable solutions that promote scientific rigor and discovery and enhance the mental health of clinical scientists and the public alike.

Strategies for Achieving Gender Equity and Work-Life Integration in Physician-Scientist Training

Substantial gender inequities persist across academic medicine. These issues are not new: Recent evidence still points to a chilly climate for women in academic medicine, including those in physician-scientist training. The discussion for how to address gender equity and issues of work-life integration typically centers around faculty and rarely includes trainees. The authors delineate specific strategies to address gender inequity in physician-scientist training by identifying key stakeholders for implementation and proposing areas to integrate these strategies with current training timelines. Strategies discussed include multiple-role mentoring, allyship training for trainees and faculty, early implementation of professional development sessions, incorporation of childcare and family-friendly policies, and additional policies for funding bodies to prioritize gender equity practices. The goal of this article is to equip trainees and the academic community with proactive strategies to create a more equitable environment for future generations of trainees in academic medicine.

Physician-scientists in the United States at 2020: Trends and concerns

Physician‐scientists comprise a unique and valuable part of the biomedical workforce, but for decades there has been concern about the number of physicians actively engaged in research. Reports have outlined the challenges facing physician‐scientists, and programs have been initiated to encourage and facilitate research careers for medically trained scientists. Many of these initiatives have demonstrated successful outcomes, but there has not been a recent summary of the impact of the past decade of effort. This report compiles available data from surveys of medical education and physician research participation to assess changes in the physician‐scientist workforce from 2011–2020. Several trends are positive: rising enrollments in MD‐PhD programs, greater levels of interest in research careers among matriculating medical students, more research experience during medical school and rising numbers of physicians in academic medicine, and an increase in first R01 grants to physician‐scientists. However, there are now decreased levels of interest in research careers among graduating medical students, a steady decline in MDs applying for NIH loan repayment program support, an increased age at first R01 grant success for physicians, and fewer physicians reporting research as their primary work activity: all of these indicators create concern for the stability of the career path. Despite a recommendation by the Physician‐Scientist Workforce in 2014 to create “real‐time” reporting on NIH grants and grantees to help the public assess trends, this initiative has not been completed. Better information is still needed to fully understand the status of the physician‐scientist workforce, and to assess efforts to stabilize this vulnerable career path.

Gaps between college and starting an MD-PhD program are adding years to physician-scientist training time

The average age when physician-scientists begin their career has been rising. Here, we focused on one contributor to this change: the increasingly common decision by candidates to postpone applying to MD-PhD programs until after college. This creates a time gap between college and medical school. Data were obtained from 3544 trainees in 73 programs, 72 program directors, and AAMC databases. From 2013 to 2020, the prevalence of gaps rose from 53% to 75%, with the time usually spent doing research. Gap prevalence for MD students also increased but not to the same extent and for different reasons. Differences by gender, underrepresented status, and program size were minimal. Most candidates who took a gap did so because they believed it would improve their chances of admission, but gaps were as common among those not accepted to MD-PhD programs as among those who were. Many program directors preferred candidates with gaps, believing without evidence that gaps reflects greater commitment. Although candidates with gaps were more likely to have a publication at the time of admission, gaps were not associated with a shorter time to degree nor have they been shown to improve outcomes. Together, these observations raise concerns that, by promoting gaps after college, current admissions practices have had unintended consequences without commensurate advantages.

Pearls of wisdom for aspiring physician-scientist residency applicants and program directors

Postgraduate physician-scientist training programs (PSTPs) enhance the experiences of physician-scientist trainees following medical school graduation. PSTPs usually span residency and fellowship training, but this varies widely by institution. Applicant competitiveness for these programs would be enhanced, and unnecessary trainee anxiety relieved, by a clear understanding of what factors define a successful PSTP matriculant. Such information would also be invaluable to PSTP directors and would allow benchmarking of their admissions processes with peer programs. We conducted a survey of PSTP directors across the US to understand the importance they placed on components of PSTP applications. Of 41 survey respondents, most were from internal medicine and pediatrics residency programs. Of all components in the application, two elements were considered very important by a majority of PSTP directors: (a) having one or more first-author publications and (b) the thesis advisor’s letter. Less weight was consistently placed on factors often considered more relevant for non-physician-scientist postgraduate applicants — such as US Medical Licensing Examination scores, awards, and leadership activities. The data presented here highlight important metrics for PSTP applicants and directors and suggest that indicators of scientific productivity and commitment to research outweigh traditional quantitative measures of medical school performance.

Facilitating Success of the Early Stage Surgeon Scientist Trainee: Growing the Surgeon Scientist Pipeline

OBJECTIVE

Surgeon scientists bring to bear highly specialized talent and innovative and impactful solutions for complicated clinical problems. Our objective is to inform and provide framework for early stage surgeon scientist training and support.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Undergraduate, medical student, and residency experiences impact the career trajectory of surgeon scientists. To combat the attrition of the surgeon scientist pipeline, interventions are needed to engage trainees and to increase the likelihood of success of future surgeon scientists.

METHODS

A surgery resident writing group at an academic medical center, with guidance from faculty, prepared this guidance document for early stage surgeon scientist trainees with integration of the published literature to provide context. The publicly available National Institutes of Health RePORTER tool was queried to provide data salient to early stage surgeon scientist training.

RESULTS

The educational path of surgeons and the potential research career entry points are outlined. Challenges and critical supportive elements needed to inspire and sustain progress along the surgeon scientist training path are detailed. Funding mechanisms available to support formal scientific training of early stage surgeon scientists are identified and obstacles specific to surgical careers are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

This guidance enhances awareness of essential education, communication, infrastructure, resources, and advocacy by surgery leaders and other stakeholders to promote quality research training in residency and to re-invigorate the surgeon scientist pipeline.

Training Physician‒Scientists for Careers in Investigative Dermatology

Physician‒scientists have made countless discoveries, and their dwindling numbers are a significant concern. Although dermatology has become an increasingly popular destination for physician‒scientist trainees, the proportion of trainees who pursue scientific research careers after training is among the lowest of all medical specialties. To investigate this problem, we surveyed a national cohort of dermatology educators, physician‒scientist track program directors, and National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases T32 directors for opinions regarding physician‒scientist training in dermatology. On the basis of these findings and to help address the issue, we propose a training practicum and provide a resource for funding opportunities to help guide trainees and institutions interested in supporting investigative dermatologists. We also discuss the important roles of department chairs and institutions in fashioning an environment conducive to physician‒scientist training. The information and recommendations provided in this paper may help to improve the recruitment, training, development, and retention of investigative dermatologists and future leaders in this field.

More than grit: growing and sustaining physician-scientists in obstetrics and gynecology

Obstetricians know the statistics-1 out of every 10 babies is born premature; preeclampsia affects 1 in 25 pregnant people; the United States has the highest rate of maternal mortality in the developed world. Yet, physicians and scientists still do not fully understand the biology of normal pregnancy, let alone what causes these complications. Obstetrics and gynecology-trained physician-scientists are uniquely positioned to fill critical knowledge gaps by addressing clinically-relevant problems through fundamental research and interpreting insights from basic and translational studies in the clinical context. Within our specialty, however, physician-scientists are relatively uncommon. Inadequate guidance, lack of support and community, and structural barriers deter fellows and early stage faculty from pursuing the physician-scientist track. One approach to help cultivate the next generation of physician-scientists in obstetrics and gynecology is to demystify the process and address the common barriers that contribute to the attrition of early stage investigators. Here, we review major challenges and propose potential pathways forward in the areas of mentorship, obtaining protected research time and resources, and ensuring diversity, equity, and inclusion, from our perspective as early stage investigators in maternal-fetal medicine. We discuss the roles of early stage investigators and leaders at the institutional and national level in the collective effort to retain and grow our physician-scientist workforce. We aim to provide a framework for early stage investigators initiating their research careers and a starting point for discussion with academic stakeholders. We cannot afford to lose the valuable contributions of talented individuals due to modifiable factors or forfeit our voices as advocates for the issues that impact pregnant populations.

Recent Trends in Faculty Promotion in U.S. Medical Schools: Implications for Recruitment, Retention, and Diversity and Inclusion

PURPOSE

Faculty promotion is important for retention and has implications for diversity. This study provides an update on recent trends in faculty promotion in U.S. medical schools.

METHOD

Using data from the Association of American Medical Colleges Faculty Roster, the authors examined trends in faculty promotion over 10 years. Promotion status for full-time assistant and full-time associate professors who started between 2000 and 2009 inclusive was followed from January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2019. The authors used bivariate analyses to assess associations and promotion rates by sex, race/ethnicity, department, tenure status, and degree type.

RESULTS

The promotion rate for assistant professors was 44.3% (2,330/5,263) in basic science departments, 37.1% (17,232/46,473) in clinical science departments, and 33.6% (131/390) in other departments. Among clinical departments, family medicine had the lowest rate of promoting assistant professors (24.4%; 484/1,982) and otolaryngology the highest rate (51.2%; 282/551). Faculty members who were male (38.9%; 11,687/30,017), White (40.0%; 12,635/31,596), tenured (58.7%; 98/167) or tenure-eligible (55.6%; 6,653/11,976), and holding MDs/PhDs (48.7%; 1,968/4,038) had higher promotion rates than, respectively, faculty who were female (36.3%; 7,975/21,998), minorities underrepresented in medicine (URM; 31.0%; 1,716/5,539), nontenured (32.5%; 12,174/37,433), and holding other/unknown degrees (20.6%; 195/948; all P < .001). These differences were less pronounced among associate professors; however, URM and nontenured faculty continued to have lower promotion rates compared with White, Asian, or tenured faculty at the associate professor level.

CONCLUSIONS

Promotion rates varied not only by faculty rank but also by faculty sex, race/ethnicity, department, tenure status, and degree type. The differences were more pronounced for assistant professors than associate professors. URM faculty members, particularly assistant professors, were promoted at lower rates than their White and Asian peers. More research to understand the drivers of disparities in faculty promotion seems warranted.

Lacking Advanced Degrees are Not a Barrier to Entry into Academic Surgery Leadership

BACKGROUND

Undergraduate and graduate medical education offerings continue to create opportunities for medical students to pursue MD+ degree education. These educational endeavors provide formal education in fields related to surgery, which gives trainees and surgeons diverse perspectives on surgical care. This study sought to assess current prevalence of additional advanced degrees among leaders in academic surgery to assess the relationship between dual degree attainment and holding various leadership positions within surgical departments.

METHODS

The Association for Program Directors in Surgery database was used to identify academic surgical programs, which comprised our study population. Each department of surgery website in the APDS database was interrogated for departmental leaders and their reported academic degrees.

RESULTS

Among 3223 identified surgeon leaders, 14.6% (470/3223) were found to possess MD+ degrees. Most common degrees possessed included MBA, MPH, and PhD. In comparing different types of surgeon leaders such as chairs, program directors, and division chiefs, no group was found to have a significantly higher prevalence of MD+ degrees than others.

CONCLUSION

Prevalence of MD+ degrees among current academic surgery leaders is low, and the lack of an advanced degree should not be considered a barrier to entry into leadership positions. We hypothesize that these findings are likely to evolve as larger proportions of trainees obtain MD+ degrees during medical school and academic development time throughout residency.

Becoming an academic pediatric surgeon scientist in Canada

Pediatric surgeon scientists in Canada and broadly North America occupy a unique role balancing both clinical practice and surgical research. The path to becoming an academic pediatric surgeon scientist is one that is lengthy but highly rewarding. There are excellent opportunities for young surgeons to become academic pediatric surgeons represented by the Doctor of Medicine (MD) / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) and the Surgeon Scientist Training Programs (SSTP). Meeting the demands for clinical practice often takes precedence over research training in healthcare, leading to a potential shortage of academic pediatric surgeons in Canada and North America. This shortage often leads to increased reliance on international research collaborations and imported talent to continue to advance the field. Protecting the research academic time is essential to a fruitful progression in academic pediatric surgery.

The impact of research intercalation during medical school on post-graduate career progression

BACKGROUND

Medical students at The University of Manchester have the option of research intercalation on the Master of Research programme. There is a paucity of evidence for the benefits of research intercalation. However, we hypothesised that research intercalation would accelerate post-graduate career progression and aimed to objectively measure the career enhancing impact, quantify the benefits and determine the alumni perception of research intercalation.

METHODS

Data was collected retrospectively by electronic questionnaire (in 2018) from those commencing research intercalation between 2005 and 2012.

RESULTS

Participants (n=52) returned questionnaires (68% response), demonstrating that the cohort had completed 67 postgraduate qualifications, published 304 manuscripts (median 3 publications per person (PP); range: 0-53) and made 430 presentations (median 7 PP; range: 0-37). Alumni had been awarded 49 research grants; funding disclosed on 43% totalled £823,000. Career progression of 73% of alumni had taken the minimum number of years; 27% took longer due to time spent working abroad or to gain additional experience prior to specialty training. Fifty-five publications and 71 presentations were directly related to MRes projects.

CONCLUSION

Research intercalation provides graduates with an opportunity to learn valuable transferrable skills, contribute to translational research, and objectively enhances medical career progression.

Enabling MedTech Translation in Academia: Redefining Value Proposition with Updated Regulations

Academic institutions are becoming more focused on translating new technologies for clinical applications. A transition from "bench to bedside" is often described to take basic research concepts and methods to develop a therapeutic or diagnostic solution with proven evidence of efficacy at the clinical level while also fulfilling regulatory requirements. The regulatory environment is evolving in Europe with transition and grace periods for the full enforcement of the Medical Device Regulation 2017/745 (MDR), replacing the Medical Device Directive 93/42/EEC (MDD). These new guidelines increase demands for scientific, technical, and clinical data with reduced capacity in regulatory bodies creating uncertainty in future product certification. Academic translational activities will be uniquely affected by this new legislation. The barriers and threats to successful translation in academia can be overcome by strong clinical partnerships, close-industrial collaborations, and entrepreneurial programs, enabling continued product development to overcome regulatory hurdles, reassuring their foothold of medical device development.

MD-PhD graduates remain underrepresented in orthopaedic surgery: National MD-PhD Program Outcome Survey update

With the dramatic expansion of the biomedical knowledge base and increasing demands for evidence-based medicine, the role of the clinician-scientist is becoming increasingly important. In orthopaedic surgery, clinician-scientists are at the forefront of translational efforts to address the growing burden of musculoskeletal disease, yet MD-PhD trained investigators have historically been underrepresented in this field. Here, we examine the trend, over time, of MD-PhD graduates pursuing orthopaedic surgery, compared with other specialties. Survey data from the 2018 Association of American Medical Colleges National MD-PhD Program Outcomes Study, including data on 4,647 individuals who had completed residency training and 2,124 who were still in training, were reanalyzed. Numbers, proportions, workplace choice, and percent research effort of MD-PhD graduates completing orthopaedic surgery were compared with other surgical and nonsurgical specialties. Trends over time were analyzed by linear regression. While a decreasing proportion of MD-PhD graduates completed internal medicine training, just 1.1% of MD-PhD graduates completed orthopaedic surgery training, lower than that of all other surgical specialties. The proportion of MD-PhD graduates completing orthopaedic surgery has not increased over time and was mirrored in MD-PhD residents still in training. Though MD-PhDs are increasingly choosing to pursue "nontraditional" specialties, they remain underrepresented in orthopaedic surgery, compared with other clinical disciplines. Thus, there exists an opportunity to encourage MD-PhD graduates to pursue careers in orthopaedic surgery, to supplement the existing intellectual capital in the orthopaedic science workforce. This, along with other strategies to support all orthopaedic surgeon-scientists, will ultimately advance the care of musculoskeletal diseases.

A nationwide assessment of perceptions of research-intense academic careers among predoctoral MD and MD-PhD trainees

Introduction:

While previous studies have described career outcomes of physician-scientist trainees after graduation, trainee perceptions of research-intensive career pathways remain unclear. This study sought to identify the perceived interests, factors, and challenges associated with academic and research careers among predoctoral MD trainees, MD trainees with research-intense (>50%) career intentions (MD-RI), and MD-PhD trainees.

Methods:

A 70-question survey was administered to 16,418 trainees at 32 academic medical centers from September 2012 to December 2014. MD vs. MD-RI (>50% research intentions) vs. MD-PhD trainee responses were compared by chi-square tests. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify variables associated with academic and research career intentions.

Results:

There were 4433 respondents (27% response rate), including 2625 MD (64%), 653 MD-RI (15%), and 856 MD-PhD (21%) trainees. MD-PhDs were most interested in pursuing academia (85.8%), followed by MD-RIs (57.3%) and MDs (31.2%). Translational research was the primary career intention for MD-PhD trainees (42.9%). Clinical duties were the primary career intention for MD-RIs (51.9%) and MDs (84.2%). While 39.8% of MD-PhD respondents identified opportunities for research as the most important career selection factor, only 12.9% of MD-RI and 0.5% of MD respondents shared this perspective. Interest in basic research, translational research, clinical research, education, and the ability to identify a mentor were each independently associated with academic career intentions by multivariate regression.

Conclusions:

Predoctoral MD, MD-RI, and MD-PhD trainees are unique cohorts with different perceptions and interests toward academic and research careers. Understanding these differences may help to guide efforts to mentor the next generation of physician-scientists.

How perceptions of a successful physician-scientist varies with gender and academic rank: toward defining physician-scientist's success

BACKGROUND

Physician-scientists (the physician-scientist workforce) are aging, and there are too few physician-scientists in the pipeline to replace those who retire. Moreover, the pipeline is leaky because some trainees and junior physician-scientists choose other career paths. Significant attention has been directed toward patching the leaking pipeline, thereby increasing the quantity of physician-scientists. Less attention has been devoted to identifying and training more successful physician-scientists, thereby increasing the quality of the pool and making up for the attrition. Though all training programs strive to develop more successful graduates, there is no clear understanding of what constitutes predictors of future success. Identifying characteristics of success would enable those who recruit trainees-and later hire and fund physician-scientists-to make more informed decisions. It also could impact on the training, as it would be possible to focus on competencies that foster success. Predictors of success are therefore important. Prior to taking on this task, however, we must first define success for physician-scientists.

METHODS

To identify likely characteristics of success, we undertook a qualitative case study where 21 physician-scientists were interviewed to determine their perceptions of what constitutes a successful physician-scientist. Sixteen interviewees were selected based on convenience sampling, while the remaining five were selected based on the snowball effect. Interviews were transcribed and coded in Dedoose® and a qualitative analysis was conducted using an inductive approach to content analysis.

RESULTS

There was considerable variation in their perceptions based on seniority and gender. Junior physician-scientists focused on metrics on which their promotion is based, e.g., publications and grants; senior physician-scientists focused on their legacy, e.g., contribution to the field and mentoring. Women were more likely to emphasize objective measures of success, like publications, while concurrently concentrating on relational skills, like networking, collaboration and public recognition. Men emphasized the impact of science and subjective characteristics like boldness, confidence and critical thinking.

CONCLUSION

Clearly, physician-scientists are not working off of a uniform metric of success, thereby making their evaluation and remuneration a convoluted process, especially if those evaluating the physician-scientists are not of the same mind as to the definition of success.

The national MD-PhD program outcomes study: Outcomes variation by sex, race, and ethnicity

In 2015, a nation-wide effort was launched to track the careers of over 10,000 MD-PhD program graduates. Data were obtained by surveys sent to alumni, inquiries sent to program directors, and searches in American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) databases. Here, we present an analysis of the data, focusing on the impact of sex, race, and ethnicity on career outcomes. The results show that diversity among trainees has increased since the earliest MD-PhD programs, although it still lags considerably behind the US population. Training duration, which includes time to graduation as well as time to first independent position, was similar for men and women and for minority and nonminority alumni, as were most choices of medical specialties. Regardless of minority status and sex, most survey responders reported that they are working in academia, research institutes, federal agencies, or industry. These similarities were, however, accompanied by several noteworthy differences: (a) Based on AAMC Faculty Roster data rather than survey responses, women were less likely than men to have had a full-time faculty appointment, (b) minorities who graduated after 1985 had a longer average time to degree than nonminorities, (c) fewer women and minorities have NIH grants, (d) fewer women reported success in moving from a mentored to an independent NIH award, and (e) women in the most recent graduation cohort reported spending less time on research than men. Collectively, these results suggest that additional efforts need to be made to recruit women and minorities into MD-PhD programs and, once recruited, to understand the drivers behind the differences that have emerged in their career paths.