Project description:Academic medicine has faced an alarming decline in recent years necessitating the realisation of an integrated academic training pathway. This initiative has enabled many graduates to enter a structured academic training environment potentially leading to the award of a higher degree. A period of out of programme research or experience remains popular with trainees in gastroenterology, with up to 20% of trainees undertaking this at any one time. Most trainees believe that possessing a higher degree leads to improved job aspects. However, it is our belief that undertaking a higher degree leads to a global enhancement of gastroenterological training. Firstly, undertaking a higher degree facilitates the development of a myriad of personal and professional skills ranging from communication, research, scientific, critical thinking, problem solving to time and project management. These multifaceted transferrable skills are as applicable to the bedside as to the bench and in our belief are highly desirable with potential employers. Secondly, the acquisition of a higher degree allows the trainee to develop a subspecialty interest and a network of contacts, both national and international, within one's chosen field. Finally, we argue that the addition of time in research to the training period allows personal and professional maturation hitherto less easily achieved in the standard training period of 5 years. Overall, pursuing a higher degree in gastroenterology is a pursuit of excellence, something we should all strive for.
Project description:To reduce debt burden and encourage the pursuit of research-focused careers, most MD-PhD programs provide medical school tuition remission and an annual stipend. However, prolonged training compared with MD physicians postpones the time until MD-PhD physicians earn a full salary. We compared lifetime earning potential for MD-PhD physicians in academia with their MD colleagues in the same clinical specialty. We examined the relationship between earning potential based on specialty and the likelihood that MD-PhD physicians reported being engaged predominantly in research. Lifetime earning potential was estimated using 2020-2021 debt and compensation data for 77,701 academic physicians across 47 specialties. Self-reported research effort for 3,025 MD-PhD program alumni in academia was taken from the National MD-PhD Program Outcomes Study. We found that (a) MD-PhD physicians had a lower lifetime earning potential than MD physicians in the same specialty; (b) there was an inverse relationship between earning potential and research effort in different specialties, with MD-PhD physicians in high-earning specialties tending to spend less time on research; and (c) despite this, MD-PhD physicians in academia were more likely to choose clinical fields that allow more time for research.
Project description:Background: Female physician-scientists have led major advances in medicine broadly and particularly in women's health. Women remain underrepresented in dual MD-PhD degree programs that train many physician-scientists despite gender parity among medical and biomedical research students. Materials and Methods: To explore how the training environment might be experienced differently for male and female students in one MD-PhD program, the authors analyzed gender differences in annual symposium speakers with exact binomial tests, student participation as question-askers at a weekly seminar with logistic regression, and number of publications with quasi-Poisson generalized linear models. They compared male and female students' perceptions of gender-based discrimination using a survey, including qualitative analysis of free text responses. The program consisted of 71 total students in the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 academic years. Female students comprised 42.0% (81/191) of program matriculants from 1997 to 2019. Results: Male and female students were equally likely to present at the annual program symposium, but faculty (p = 0.001) and keynote (p = 0.012) presenters were more likely to be male. Compared with male counterparts, female students asked fewer seminar questions (p < 0.005) and female speakers received more questions (p = 0.03). Female students perceived less support and differed from men in reasons for asking or not asking seminar questions. Free text responses described repeated small acts of discrimination toward women with cumulative impact. Positive program changes followed presentation of findings to program leaders and students. Conclusions: The authors identified several aspects of one MD-PhD program that could discourage career or training persistence of female students. Increasing awareness of these issues was temporally related to positive programmatic changes.
Project description: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.
Project description:BackgroundLesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, non-binary, intersex, and/or asexual (LGBTQ+) individuals continue to suffer worse health outcomes compared to the general population. Data on LGBTQ+ individuals in medicine, particularly in medical training, remain sparse. National studies of LGBTQ+ students in MD/PhD and DO/PhD training programs have not been reported.MethodsTrainees pursuing MD, DO, MD/PhD, and DO/PhD degrees at 32 nationally representative institutions completed a 70-item survey about their future career and anticipated challenges using an online survey tool from September 2012 to December 2014. There were 4,433 respondents to the survey. Of those, 2,837 completed the gender identity questions and 2,849 completed the sexual orientation questions. Completion of these questions was required for inclusion. Survey results were analyzed to examine differences between LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ medical and dual degree trainees.ResultsLGBTQ+ students were underrepresented among MD/PhD and DO/PhD trainees (8.70%) compared to the US population, though their representation was higher than among MD and DO trainees (5.20%). LGBTQ+ dual degree trainees endorsed the greatest interest in pursuing careers involving academic medicine, with varying career focuses including research, clinical duties, education, and advocacy. LGBTQ+ dual degree trainees prioritized opportunities in patient care, work-life balance, and research as the most important factors for their career selection. Importantly, a higher percentage of LGBTQ+ dual degree trainees (15.50%) identified sexual harassment as a past barrier to career advancement compared to their non-LGBTQ+ peers (8.27%). LGBTQ+ dual degree trainees were more likely to report having a mentor who advocated for them.ConclusionsLGBTQ+ physician scientist trainees remain under-represented and under-studied. It is vital that medical institutions devote more time and resources towards identifying and addressing the unique needs of this group in training. Training programs should be aware of the current and prior challenges faced by their LGBTQ+ dual degree trainees, work to overcome the unique barriers they face, highlight the strengths and unique perspectives they bring, and foster their professional growth and goals during and beyond their training.
Project description:A longstanding challenge facing MD-PhD students and other dual-degree medical trainees is the loss of clinical knowledge that occurs during the non medical phases of training. Academic medical institutions nationwide have developed continued clinical training and exposure to maintain clinical competence; however, quantitative assessment of their usefulness remains largely unexplored. The current study therefore sought to both implement and optimize an online game platform to support MD-PhD students throughout their research training. Sixty three current MD-PhD students completing the PhD research phase of training were enrolled in an institutionally-developed online game platform for 2 preliminary and 4 competition rounds of 3-4 weeks each. During preliminary game rounds, we found that participation, though initially high, declined precipitously throughout the duration of each round, with 37 students participating to some extent. Daily reminders were implemented in subsequent rounds, which markedly improved player participation. Average participation in competition rounds exceeded 35% (23/63) active participants each round, with trending improvement in scores throughout the duration of PhD training. Both player participation and progress through the research phase of the MD-PhD program correlated positively with game performance and therefore knowledge retention and/or acquisition. Coupled with positive survey-based feedback from participants, our data therefore suggest that gamification is an effective tool for MD-PhD programs to combat loss of clinical knowledge during research training.
Project description:IntroductionWhile 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsThere 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.ConclusionsPredoctoral 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.
Project description:BackgroundCombined MD/PhD programs provide a structured path for physician-scientist training, but assessment of their success within Canada is limited by a lack of quantitative data. We collected outcomes data for graduates of Canadian MD/PhD programs.MethodsWe developed and implemented a Web-based survey consisting of 41 questions designed to collect outcomes data for Canadian MD/PhD program alumni from 8 Canadian universities who had graduated before September 2015. Respondents were categorized into 2 groups according to whether they had or had not completed all training.ResultsOf the 186 eligible alumni of MD/PhD programs, 139 (74.7%) completed the survey. A total of 136/138 respondents (98.6%) had completed or were currently completing residency training, and 66/80 (82%) had completed at least 1 postgraduate fellowship. Most (58 [83%]) of the 70 respondents who had completed all training were appointed as faculty at academic institutions, and 37 (53%) had been principal investigators on at least 1 recent funded project. Among the 58 respondents appointed at academic institutions, 44/57 (77%) dedicated at least 20% of their time to research, and 25/57 (44%) dedicated at least 50% to research. During their combined degree, 102/136 respondents (75.0%) published 3 or more first-author papers, and 133/136 (97.8%) matched with their first choice of specialty. The median length of physician-scientist training was 13.5 years. Most respondents graduated with debt despite having been supported by Canadian Institutes of Health Research MD/PhD studentships.InterpretationMost Canadian MD/PhD program alumni pursued careers consistent with their physician-scientist training, which indicates that these programs are meeting their primary objective. Nevertheless, our findings highlight that a minority of these positions are research intensive; this finding warrants further study. Our data provide a baseline for future monitoring of the output of Canadian MD/PhD programs.
Project description:IntroductionMD-PhD training programs train physician-scientists to pursue careers involving both clinical care and research, but decreasing numbers of physician-scientists stay engaged in clinical research. We sought to identify current clinical research training methods utilized by MD-PhD programs and to assess how effective they are in promoting self-efficacy for clinical research.MethodsThe US MD-PhD students were surveyed in April-May 2018. Students identified the clinical research training methods they participated in, and self-efficacy in clinical research was determined using a modified 12-item Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory.ResultsResponses were received from 61 of 108 MD-PhD institutions. Responses were obtained from 647 MD-PhD students in all years of training. The primary methods of clinical research training included no clinical research training, and various combinations of didactics, mentored clinical research, and a clinical research practicum. Students with didactics plus mentored clinical research had similar self-efficacy as those with didactics plus clinical research practicum. Training activities that differentiated students who did and did not have the clinical research practicum experience and were associated with higher self-efficacy included exposure to Institutional Review Boards and participation in human subject recruitment.ConclusionsA clinical research practicum was found to be an effective option for MD-PhD students conducting basic science research to gain experience in clinical research skills. Clinical research self-efficacy was correlated with the amount of clinical research training and specific clinical research tasks, which may inform curriculum development for a variety of clinical and translational research training programs, for example, MD-PhD, TL1, and KL2.