scholarly journals Canadian M.D.-Ph.D. Programs Produce Impactful Physician-Scientists: The McGill Experience

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tianwei E. Zhou ◽  
Paul A. Savage ◽  
Mark J. Eisenberg
Keyword(s):  
Health Research ◽  
Budget Constraints ◽  
Annual Average ◽  
Protected Time ◽  
Operating Budget ◽  
Physician Scientist ◽  
Healthcare Innovation ◽  
Funding Climate ◽  
Physician Scientists ◽  
Canadian Healthcare

On June 18, 2015, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) announced that it would terminate funding to M.D.-Ph.D. programs due to budget constraints, against the recommendations from two advisory panels. CIHR’s M.D.-Ph.D. program grants, which amounted to an annual average of $1.8 million in the form of 14 six-year studentships, represent only 0.15% of CIHR’s $1.2 billion operating budget. As over half of M.D.-Ph.D. trainees are dependent on these studentships, this poses a threat to physician-scientist training in Canada. In response to the current volatile funding climate, we surveyed McGill University’s M.D.-Ph.D. program alumni to assess its success in producing physician-scientists. In this program, 60.0% of graduates who have completed training have become physician-scientists, the majority being retained in Canada. These individuals have attained positions with sufficiently protected time for research and had grant success and significant publications for early- to mid-career investigators. This suggests that the current M.D.-Ph.D. system is an effective way of producing competent physician-scientists. As physician-scientists have remarkably contributed to Canadian healthcare innovation despite making up a fraction of physicians and researchers, vulnerability in the M.D.-Ph.D. pipeline would invariably affect the health of Canadians.

scholarly journals Would you do it again? A qualitative study of student and supervisor perceptions of an intercalated MBChB/PhD programme

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yassar Alamri ◽  
Kate Magner ◽  
Tim J. Wilkinson
Keyword(s):  
Career Development ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Expectancy Theory ◽  
Intercalated Degree ◽  
Physician Scientist ◽  
The University ◽  
Successful Students ◽  
Successes And Challenges ◽  
Physician Scientists ◽  
Vroom's Expectancy Theory

Abstract Background Several studies have warned about the diminishing physician-scientist breed. Limited studies, however, have attempted to assess what factors (if any) enhanced or hindered the experience of trainee physician-scientists and their supervisors. Using Vroom’s expectancy theory as a conceptual framework, we explored the highlights, motivations and barriers of an intercalated MBChB/PhD programme as experienced by students of the programme and their supervisors. Methods Previous and current students of the MBChB/PhD programme at the University of Otago, and their supervisors, were invited to provide comments on the programme. Data were analysed using a general inductive approach which involved coding responses, and grouping codes into common themes via an iterative process. A deductive approach was used to interpret the themes and relate them to Vroom’s expectancy theory. Results A total of 22 students (88% response rate) and 36 supervisors (58.3% response rate) responded to our survey. Three themes were identified through the analysis of the students’ responses. These were: motives for undertaking the intercalated degree, effect on career development, and perceived barriers. Supervisors’ survey yielded two themes: characteristics of successful students, and optimising the intercalated programme. Conclusions The current study sheds light on the successes and challenges of an intercalated MBChB/PhD programme by considering the views of those most involved. Whereas the combined programme has its advantages for student research and career development, extending the research-time may be worthwhile. Further studies involving a larger cohort of intercalating students and their supervisors may allow for extrapolation of data to address these concerns.

scholarly journals 3292 Duke Integrated Physician-Scientist Development

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (s1) ◽  
pp. 67-68
Author(s):  
Stephanie A. Freel ◽  
Michael Gunn ◽  
Andrew Alspaugh ◽  
Gowthami Arepally ◽  
Gerard Blobe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Students ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Junior Faculty ◽  
Research Engagement ◽  
School Of Medicine ◽  
Funding Program ◽  
Research Careers ◽  
Physician Scientist ◽  
Physician Scientists

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: 1.Identify barriers to pursuing research for physician trainees 2.Develop a sustainable pipeline of physician-scientists at Duke 3.Coordinate physician-scientist development programs across the School of Medicine under one central Office 4.Provide infrastructure and resources for all physician-scientists 5.Increase the number of MDs and MD/PhDs who pursue, succeed, and are retained in research METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: To establish a baseline understanding of the needs and concerns of physician-scientist trainees at Duke, we conducted focus groups using a standardized interview guide and thematic analysis. Findings from these focus groups were used to develop a framework for support, leading to the creation of the Office of Physician-Scientist Development (OPSD) housed centrally within the Duke School of Medicine. The OPSD integrates programs and resources for multiple populations including medical students, residents, fellows, junior faculty, and faculty mentors. Pipeline programs will also be developed to enhance research engagement in targeted student populations prior to medical school. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: A total of 45 students and faculty participated in the focus groups and structured interviews (1st year medical student, n=11; 4th year medical students, n=11; residents/fellows, n=13; junior faculty, n=11). While participants raised a number of specific issues, one key message emerged: non-PhD MDs in basic research felt they lacked opportunities for directed training. Moreover, they felt the need to teach themselves many critical skills through trial and error. This has led to perceptions that they cannot compete effectively with PhDs and MD-PhD scientists for research funding and positions. Consensus recommendations included: better guidance in choosing mentors, labs, and projects; central resource for information relevant to physician scientists; training specifically tailored to physician scientists conducting laboratory-based research; improved infrastructure and well-defined training pathways; and assistance with grant preparation. To-date, over 90 students, residents, and fellows have been identified who identify as laboratory-based physician scientists. Additional efforts are underway to identify and characterize the broader range of physician-scientist students and trainees at Duke. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Our planning study revealed specific steps forward toward developing a robust community of physician-scientists at Duke. As a first step, the Dean of the School of Medicine has appointed an Associate Dean of Physician-Scientist Development to oversee a new Office of Physician-Scientist Development (OPSD) being launched in December of 2018. The OPSD will offer four primary programs. 1) A concierge mentoring program will assist new trainees in identifying research areas of interest and mentors. Trainees will receive periodic contact to provide additional support as needed and promote success. 2) A physician-scientist training program is being created to provide training specific to laboratory research skills as well as career and professional development training to complement existing clinical and translational research programs. 3) Integrated training pathways will provide additional mentored research training for those pursuing research careers. Pathways will capitalize on existing resources from R38 programs, while pursuing additional R38 and R25 support. 4) An MD-Scientist funding program has been developed to provide additional research funding and protected time for students pursuing a second research year. Through the support and programming offered by the OPSD, we anticipate decreased perceptions of barriers to pursuing a physician-scientist career and increased satisfaction with training opportunities. Over time, we expect such support to increase the number of MD students pursuing research as a career and the number of residents, fellows, and MD junior faculty remaining in research careers.

scholarly journals Challenges and opportunities for future Canadian physician-scientists: Perspectives of four experts

2020 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. E15-24
Author(s):  
Alexander Levit ◽  
Robert Bortolussi
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Work ◽  
The United States ◽  
Healthcare Research ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Expert Opinions ◽  
Challenges And Opportunities ◽  
Canadian Physician ◽  
Physician Scientist ◽  
Investigative Medicine ◽  
Physician Scientists

In this series of interviews, the Clinical and Investigative Medicine editorial team gathered expert opinions on the future of physician-scientist training and career prospects in Canada. This was inspired by recent publications that voiced concerns over the diminishing support for the physician-scientist in Canada and the United States. For this editorial, the term physician-scientist was intentionally broad and inclusive; referring to individuals who identify both clinical work and biomedical or healthcare research as major components of their career. The following leaders in medical research or research funding shared their perspectives: Roderick R. McInnes; Michel G. Bergeron; Thomas J. Marrie; and Bev J. Holmes.

scholarly journals Supporting the Development of Physician-scientists

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mimi Xiaoming Deng
Keyword(s):  
Research Funding ◽  
Medical Training ◽  
Clinical Excellence ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Investigator ◽  
Research Involvement ◽  
Research Mentorship ◽  
Physician Scientist ◽  
Physician Scientists

In the last decade, there has been a discrepancy between the increasing recognition for research involvement in medical training and the stagnation in the number physician-scientists. Health research funding cutbacks, inadequate mentorship, heavy schedules, and unfamiliarity with scientific methodology are obstacles that limit research interest amongst junior medical learners and cause attrition of promising physician-scientist in training. This article outlines five strategies to promote and facilitate the development of physician-scientists with the understanding that research is integral to clinical excellence. Some of the ways the undergraduate and postgraduate medical curricula can better lend themselves to producing clinicians with the skillset to address clinical uncertainties through an evidence-based approach are: partnerships between healthcare and academia, increasing admission to MD/PhD and Clinical Investigator programs, establishing fundamentals of scientific thinking, long-term research mentorship, facilitating knowledge translation.

scholarly journals 4531 Setting the Stage for Research Success: Creation of Standardized Physician-Scientist Training Program Guidelines to Facilitate Research During Clinical Training

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (s1) ◽  
pp. 67-67
Author(s):  
Stephanie A. Freel ◽  
Katherine Barrett ◽  
Jillian Hurst ◽  
Rasheed Gbadegesin ◽  
Sallie Permar
Keyword(s):  
Training Program ◽  
Residency Program ◽  
Clinical Training ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Research Progress ◽  
Training Time ◽  
Physician Scientist ◽  
Population Maintenance ◽  
Physician Scientists

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: To ameliorate the leaky pipeline of physician-scientists, we must address the factors that cause medical trainees to disengage from research. Here we describe the development of standardized Physician-Scientist Training Program guidelines that may be implemented across disciplines to address these challenges. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Maintenance of a robust pool of physician-scientists is critical to meet the rapidly growing need for novel therapeutics. A variety of factors contribute to the decline of this pool. Key among these are a lengthy training period that segregates research from clinical training, thus impeding research progress and milestones that allow for a successful research career. Through engagement of residency program directors and Vice Chairs of Research, we have created a series of guidelines that promote residency research tracks and enable better integration of research and clinical training time. Guidelines have been piloted in the Departments of Pediatrics, Medicine and Surgery in the context of 2 new R38-supported programs. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Our physician-Scientist Training Program (PSTP) guidelines were developed by our central Office of Physician-Scientist Development (OPSD) after a successful pilot of an integrated research residency program in the Department of Pediatrics [Duke Pediatric Research Scholars (DPRS); Hurst, et al, 2019], which has included 36 resident and fellow scholars over 3 years. To date, eight clinical departments have adopted our PSTP guidelines as part of their R38-supported or pending programs. The OPSD has recently created a tracking database for scholar metrics, which will further promote PSTP development by enabling centralized reporting on scholar success to individual programs. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: PSTP guidelines enable effective implementation of new programs by sharing best practices and lessons learned, standardizing expectations, and defining metrics of success. By promoting proven strategies for integrated clinical and research training, PSTP guidelines may aid in retaining trainees pursuing research careers.

Introduction

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Michael L. Power ◽  
Jay Schulkin
Keyword(s):  
Medical Education ◽  
Daily Activity ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Clinical Medicine ◽  
Evolutionary Medicine ◽  
Evolutionary Perspective ◽  
Evolutionary Thought ◽  
Physician Scientist ◽  
Medicine Today ◽  
Physician Scientists

Evolutionary medicine is an integrative discipline, combining the fields of evolutionary biology, experimental research, and clinical medicine. Contributors to the field of evolutionary medicine today come from many schools of study. Anthropologists, biologists, physiologists, and ecologists work alongside historians of science and physician scientists, all of whom are represented in the present volume. A full integration of evolutionary thought into the education of medical students and seasoned physicians has been voiced by most of the field’s contributors. Incorporating an evolutionary perspective into medicine will most likely not change the daily activity of physicians, but it will help guide the thinking and types of questions a physician-scientist should ask, by adding an evolutionary dimension. Our aim for this volume is to support medical education that teaches evolutionary medicine as a seamless component of medical practice, rather than be considered a separate school of thought.

Patching the Pipeline: Creation and Retention of the Next Generation of Physician–Scientists for Child Health Research

2014 ◽  
Vol 165 (5) ◽  
pp. 882-884.e1 ◽  
Author(s):  
David N. Cornfield ◽  
Robert Lane ◽  
Norman D. Rosenblum ◽  
Margaret Hostetter ◽  
Alan Jobe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Child Health ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Child Health Research ◽  
Physician Scientists

Transitioning from Fellowship to a Physician-Scientist Career Track

Hematology ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 2008 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ari Melnick
Keyword(s):  
Critical Period ◽  
Career Path ◽  
High Demand ◽  
Academic Position ◽  
Physician Scientist ◽  
Trained Physician ◽  
Physician Scientists

Abstract Given the remarkable advances in bio-medicine in recent years, there has never been a better time to devote one’s efforts towards bench to beside medicine. Accordingly, well-trained physician-scientists are in high demand in the private and academic sectors, and there is increasing awareness of the need to support and nurture such individuals. Clinical fellows in hematology, oncology and hematopathology with an interest in the physician-scientist career path must be well prepared to succeed in transitioning from fellowship to their first academic position. This article will discuss some of the key elements that prospective clinical scientists need to assemble in order to survive this critical period.

scholarly journals 4274 Thirteen Years of Pipeline Programming at the University of Rochester’s Clinical & Translational Science Institute to Train Physician-Scientists

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (s1) ◽  
pp. 69-69
Author(s):  
Alaina Maiorano ◽  
Edwin van Wijngaarden ◽  
Alfred Vitale ◽  
Timothy De Ver Dye ◽  
Robert Gross ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Science ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Vital Role ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Research Experiences ◽  
Training Outcomes ◽  
Art Program ◽  
Physician Scientist ◽  
The University ◽  
Physician Scientists

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Physician-scientists play a vital role in biomedical research but this chosen career path has many challenges, such as long training periods and funding. The University of Rochester (UR) CTSI pipeline programs address this by enabling medical trainees to partake in enriched research experiences. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The UR CTSI TL1 is a training grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS), which funds predoctoral trainees. The TL1-funded physician-scientist pipeline includes the Academic Research Track (ART) year-out program and the Medical Science Training Program (MSTP). We describe the characteristics and training outcomes of TL1-funded trainees. We also obtained testimonials of current and former trainees regarding their career component decision-making, and their perception of programs, in order to identify how best to address the challenges of the physician-scientist workforce, and to facilitate the transition between the clinic and bench. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: From 2006-2019, the UR CTSI has had 56 ART trainees and 17 MSTP trainees complete training; six trainees have transitioned into the MSTP after completing the ART program. As of 2019, 63 of 67 graduated trainees (94%) have continued their engagement in CTS after graduation. Importantly, our programs have facilitated the careers of 31 women (39.7%) and 12 under-represented minorities (15.4%). We will present a breadth of qualitative data to inform which parts of the TL1-related programs have been successful, and which parts could use programmatic improvement to aid the transition into the physician-scientist workforce. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Physician-scientist training barriers in the US have resulted in a shortage of these professionals in the clinical and translation workforce. Our data show the UR CTSI has been successful in addressing several of these challenges via the TL1-funded ART, MSTP, and ART/MSTP dual program pipeline.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document