Dataset Information

A comparison of best practices for doctoral training in Europe and North America.

ABSTRACT: The PhD degree was established in Berlin 200 years ago and has since spread across the whole world. While there is general agreement that the degree is awarded in recognition of successfully completed research training, there have been significant differences in the way doctoral training programs have developed in particular countries. There is, however, a clear global tendency to follow the programs currently used either in the United States or in Europe. To determine more clearly how US and European PhD programs are both similar and different, we have used a validated questionnaire to analyze biomedical PhD programs in four representative institutions at Vanderbilt University, University of Manitoba, Karolinska Institutet, and Graz Medical University. The analysis is based on 63 detailed questions concerning the research environment, outcomes, admission criteria, content of programs, mentoring (or supervising), the PhD thesis, assessment of the thesis, and PhD school structure. The results reveal that while there is considerable overlap in the aims and content of PhD programs, there are also considerable differences regarding the structure of PhD programs, mentoring and assessment of PhD theses. These differences are analyzed in detail in order to provide a foundation for discussion of their relative advantages and disadvantages, with a view to providing a platform for discussion of best practices. The results will be of importance in the continued development of global discussion about development of doctoral training.

SUBMITTER: Barnett JV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5623696 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A comparison of best practices for doctoral training in Europe and North America.

Barnett Joey V JV Harris Robert A RA Mulvany Michael J MJ

FEBS open bio 20170908 10

The PhD degree was established in Berlin 200 years ago and has since spread across the whole world. While there is general agreement that the degree is awarded in recognition of successfully completed research training, there have been significant differences in the way doctoral training programs have developed in particular countries. There is, however, a clear global tendency to follow the programs currently used either in the United States or in Europe. To determine more clearly how US and Eu ...[more]

PMID: 28979835

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLyme disease incidence is increasing in Europe, the USA, and Canada. In 2010, a comparison of surveillance systems for Lyme disease (LD) in humans in 28 European countries showed that systems highly varied, making epidemiological comparisons difficult. Details by country were not published. In 2018, one of LD clinical manifestations, neuroborreliosis, was added under European Union (EU) surveillance to standardise definitions. In this study, we identified and compared, 10 years after the European inventory, the characteristics of national surveillance systems and policies for LD in humans, with additional countries.MethodsThirty-four European and North American countries were included. Information on national "traditional" systems (which compile data reported by clinicians and laboratories) and "public participatory" websites and mobile applications (which collect information directly from the public) were searched in MEDLINE, a systematic evidence map, and Google. An existing framework on LD surveillance was adapted to capture information on the administration level, indicators, reporting entities, coverage, and obligation to report.ResultsA surveillance system was found for 29 (85%) countries. Twenty-four had a traditional system alone, one had a public participatory system alone, and the remaining had both. Among countries with traditional systems, 23 (82%) administered them at the national level. Nineteen (68%) required mandatory reporting. Sixteen (57%) used both clinicians and laboratories as reporting entities. Eighteen (64%) employed case definitions, most of which considered both neuroborreliosis and erythema migrans (n = 14). Others monitored the number of positive laboratory tests and/or patient consultations. Public participatory systems were only implemented in countries employing either also sentinels or voluntary surveys, or no traditional system, suggesting their use as a complementary tool. Only 56% of EU countries had neuroborreliosis as an indicator.ConclusionThe situation remains similar to 2010 with persisting heterogeneity between systems, suggesting that countries prioritise different surveillance objectives for LD. Without a common indicator in Europe, it is difficult to get a clear epidemiological picture. We discuss four factors that potentially influence LD surveillance strategies: perceptions of severity, burden on resources, two-way communication, and the medical conflicts about LD. Addressing these with countries might help moving towards the adoption of common practices.

Dataset Information

A comparison of best practices for doctoral training in Europe and North America.

Publications

A comparison of best practices for doctoral training in Europe and North America.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets