Dataset Information

History and Outcomes of 50 Years of Physician-Scientist Training in Medical Scientist Training Programs.

ABSTRACT: Physician-scientists are needed to continue the great pace of recent biomedical research and translate scientific findings to clinical applications. MD-PhD programs represent one approach to train physician-scientists. MD-PhD training started in the 1950s and expanded greatly with the Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP), launched in 1964 by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) at the National Institutes of Health. MD-PhD training has been influenced by substantial changes in medical education, science, and clinical fields since its inception. In 2014, NIGMS held a 50th Anniversary MSTP Symposium highlighting the program and assessing its outcomes. In 2016, there were over 90 active MD-PhD programs in the United States, of which 45 were MSTP supported, with a total of 988 trainee slots. Over 10,000 students have received MSTP support since 1964. The authors present data for the demographic characteristics and outcomes for 9,683 MSTP trainees from 1975-2014. The integration of MD and PhD training has allowed trainees to develop a rigorous foundation in research in concert with clinical training. MSTP graduates have had relative success in obtaining research grants and have become prominent leaders in many biomedical research fields. Many challenges remain, however, including the need to maintain rigorous scientific components in evolving medical curricula, to enhance research-oriented residency and fellowship opportunities in a widening scope of fields targeted by MSTP graduates, to achieve greater racial diversity and gender balance in the physician-scientist workforce, and to sustain subsequent research activities of physician-scientists.

SUBMITTER: Harding CV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5617793 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

History and Outcomes of 50 Years of Physician-Scientist Training in Medical Scientist Training Programs.

Harding Clifford V CV Akabas Myles H MH Andersen Olaf S OS

Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 20171001 10

Physician-scientists are needed to continue the great pace of recent biomedical research and translate scientific findings to clinical applications. MD-PhD programs represent one approach to train physician-scientists. MD-PhD training started in the 1950s and expanded greatly with the Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP), launched in 1964 by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) at the National Institutes of Health. MD-PhD training has been influenced by substantial cha ...[more]

PMID: 28658019

Similar Datasets

Project description:Less than 2% of physicians complete a research training (PhD) after the residency with a declining trend in those pursuing a clinical scientist pathway in pediatrics. The exposure to research methodology during the clinical training may play a role in engaging the next generations of pediatric physician scientist. Herein, we describe the experience of the Padova Physician Scientist Research Training (PPSRT) of the pediatric residency program at the University of Padova. The PPSRT was addressed to residents attending PGY2 to PGY4 of the pediatric program and consisted of two cores: a general one including in person or virtual lectures about research methodology in pediatrics including design of a clinical trial, writing of a scientific paper and statistical methods, and a subspecialties core for the discussion of research challenges in each area and the scientific writing activities. The perceived barriers to a research training and an evaluation of the program were assessed by an anonymized questionnaire. Sixty-four out 150 residents registered for the research training with 62/64 completing the two cores. The major perceived barrier to research during clinical training was the absence of protected time (89%) followed by the lack of specific funds (37%). The group activities lead to the publication of 24 papers. Conclusion: This is the first experience in the Italian pediatric training of a dedicated research program within the frame of postgraduate medical education. Our report highlights the need for protected time to promote research interest and nurture a new generation of physician scientists. What is Known: • Training to medical research is not part of residency program. • The declining trend of physician scientists might be reverted by early exposure to research methodology and challenges during residency. What is New: • An early exposure to research training during pediatric residency increases the research engagement of pediatric residents. • The lack of protected time for research is perceived as the major barrier to research training during residency.

Project description:BackgroundDual degree program MD/PhD candidates typically train extensively in basic science research and in clinical medicine, but often receive little formal experience or mentorship in clinical and translational research.MethodsTo address this educational and curricular gap, the University of Wisconsin Medical Scientist Training Program partnered with the University of Wisconsin Institute for Clinical and Translational Research to create a new physician-scientist preceptorship in clinical and translational research. This six-week apprentice-style learning experience-guided by a physician-scientist faculty mentor-integrates both clinical work and a translational research project, providing early exposure and hands-on experience with clinically oriented research and the integrated career of a physician-scientist. Five years following implementation, we retrospectively surveyed students and faculty members to determine the outcomes of this preceptorship.ResultsOver five years, 38 students and 36 faculty members participated in the physician-scientist preceptorship. Based on student self-assessments (n = 29, response rate 76%), the course enhanced competency in conducting translational research and understanding regulation of clinical research among other skills. Mentor assessments (n = 17, response rate 47%) supported the value of the preceptorship in these same areas. Based on work during the preceptorship, half of the students produced a peer-reviewed publication or a meeting abstract. At least eleven peer-reviewed manuscripts were generated. The preceptorship also provided a structure for physician-scientist mentorship in the students' clinical specialty of choice.ConclusionThe physician-scientist preceptorship provides a new curricular model to address the gap of clinical research training and provides for mentorship of physician-scientists during medical school. Future work will assess the long-term impact of this course on physician-scientist career trajectories.

Project description:BackgroundSince 1992 ART clinics have been required to report outcome data. Our objective was to assess practitioners' opinions of the impact of public reporting of assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes on treatment strategies, medical decision-making, and fellow training.MethodsSurvey study performed in an academic medical center. Members of the Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility and the Society of Reproductive Surgery were recruited to participate in an online survey in April 2012.: Categorical survey responses were expressed as percentages. Written responses were categorized according to common themes regarding effects of reporting on participants' medical management of patients. The study was primarily qualitative and was not powered to make statistical conclusions.ResultsOf 1019 surveys sent, 323 participants (31.7%) responded from around the United States, and 275 provided complete data. Nearly all (273 of 282; 96.8%) participants responded that public reporting sometimes or always affected other providers' practices, and 264 of 281 (93.9%) responded that other practitioners were motivated to deny care to poor-prognosis patients to improve reported success rates. However, only 121 of 282 (42.9%) indicated that public reporting influenced their own medical management. The majority of respondents agreed that public reporting may hinder adoption of single embryo transfer practices (194 of 299; 64.9%) and contribute to the persistent rate of twinning in in vitro fertilization (187 of 279; 67%). A small majority (153 of 279; 54.8%) felt that public reporting did not benefit fellow training, and 58 (61.7%) of the 94 participants who trained fellows believed that having fellows perform embryo transfers reduced pregnancy rates. A small majority (163 of 277; 58.8%) of respondents reported their ART success rates on clinical websites. However, the majority (200 of 275; 72.7%) of respondents compared their success rates with those of other clinics. Finally, most respondents (211 of 277; 76%) believed that most centers that advertised their success rates did so in ways that were misleading to patients.ConclusionsPublic reporting of ART clinical outcomes is intended to drive improvement, promote trust between patients and providers, and inform consumers and payers. However, providers reported that they modified their practices, felt others denied care to poor-prognosis patients, and limited participation of trainees in procedures in response to public reporting of ART outcomes.

Dataset Information

History and Outcomes of 50 Years of Physician-Scientist Training in Medical Scientist Training Programs.

Publications

History and Outcomes of 50 Years of Physician-Scientist Training in Medical Scientist Training Programs.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets