U.S. Physician-Scientist Workforce in the 21st Century: Recommendations to Attract and Sustain the Pipeline

Physician-Scientist Training System and Development Strategies in Korea

Physician-scientists play a pivotal role in bridging clinical practice and biomedical research, advancing medical science, and tackling complex healthcare challenges. In South Korea, the declining number of medical doctors engaging in basic medical sciences has prompted the implementation of various training initiatives since the 2000s. Notable initiatives, such as the Integrated Physician-Scientist Training Program (2019) and the Global Physician-Scientist Training Program (2024), aim to cultivate multidisciplinary physician-scientists capable of addressing unmet medical needs. This study offers a comprehensive overview of the current training systems, funding mechanisms, and strategic approaches for physician-scientists in South Korea, compares them with international best practices, and proposes actionable policy recommendations to enhance their effectiveness and long-term sustainability.

Paving the physician-scientist career path: from grassroots gathering to national forum

The Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine (AAIM) first convened a workshop in 2015 that brought a small group of internal medicine program directors together who recognized the growing success of early-phase physician-scientist training programs but the unclear path afterward for these trainees. The meeting subsequently evolved into what is now the annual American Society for Clinical Investigation/AAIM/Burroughs Wellcome Fund (ASCI/AAIM/BWF) Physician-Scientist Pathways Workshop, which continues to bring stakeholders together to discuss the obstacles to success that physician-scientists face at all stages of their careers. This perspective presents the history and goals of the workshop, with an emphasis on the most recent meeting in 2024, and looks ahead to the work that still needs to be done to ensure a robust physician-scientist workforce.

Trends in Individual Career Development Awards from National Institutes of Health to Physicians in Departments of Psychiatry (2013-2022)

OBJECTIVE

The authors examined trends of individual career development awards from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to psychiatry faculty, especially physicians, in comparison to other departments.

METHODS

Data were obtained on 33,392 career development awards from 2013 to 2022. We examined the number of awards each year averaged for 46 non-psychiatry departments, and for departments of psychiatry, the number of awards to all faculty, physicians, and physicians without a PhD. Linear regressions determined whether number of career development awards increased with time and if estimated slopes differed between faculty in non-psychiatry departments and other groups.

RESULTS

In departments of psychiatry, 534 faculty received an NIH individual career development award during the 10-year period (534/33,392 or 1.6%), with 118 (22%) to physicians. The number of awards increased significantly over time for other departments and departments of psychiatry (estimated slopes of 3.05 and 2.38, respectively) and did not differ from one another. However, the number of awards to physicians and physicians without a PhD in departments of psychiatry (estimated slopes of 0.51 and - 0.07, respectively) have not increased. This lack of growth in awards for physicians and physicians without a PhD in departments of psychiatry differed significantly in comparison with the increase shown in awards to other departments over time (both p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The number of NIH career development awards has increased NIH-wide, and for non-physician faculty but not for physicians in departments of psychiatry. These trends raise concerns for the future of psychiatrists in academic research.

Barriers to Research for Academic Otologists/Neurotologists in the United States

OBJECTIVE

The physician-scientist workforce is shrinking in the United States. Academic otologists/neurotologists face a diverse set of barriers to successful careers. We aimed to characterize the factors affecting contemporary otology/neurotology surgeon-scientists.

STUDY DESIGN

An electronic survey was distributed to faculty members of the American Neurotology Society and the American Otological Society in 2021. The survey queried demographics, practice setting, compensation, and barriers to conducting research for respondents in academic practice.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-seven otologists/neurotologists responded to the survey, corresponding to an overall response rate of 25%. Of the respondents, 94 were in academic practice. The median protected research time was 0.5 days/wk, whereas the mode was zero. Across academic rank, salary compensation was lower for academic surgeons with active research funding and for female academic surgeons as compared with their male counterparts. Grant-funded female academic surgeons had significantly worse compensation compared with rank-matched male surgeons with similar protected time. No grant-funded female earned more than the 30th percentile for their rank. Identified barriers to research were pressure to maintain clinical productivity, insufficient protected time, and personal/family demands. Respondents highlighted several areas for improvement: compensation for research activity, administrative support, and improved grant funding mechanisms for clinician-scientists.

CONCLUSIONS

Otology/neurotology surgeon-scientists face barriers to research, including limited protected time, poor administrative support, increasingly competitive funding environments, and misaligned compensation models. New initiatives by the National Institute on Deafness and other Communication Disorders aim to increase the surgeon-scientist workforce, but their success may depend upon removing identified barriers at the level of academic institutions.

The Johns Hopkins Physician-Scientist Training Program to Enhance Institutional Retention and Entry Into Academic Positions: An Evaluation of Program Effectiveness and Outcomes

PURPOSE

The Johns Hopkins Physician-Scientist Training Program (PSTP) was implemented to overcome well-documented challenges in training and retaining physician-scientists by providing physician-scientist pathway training for residents and clinical fellows. The program's core tenets include monthly seminars, individualized feedback on project proposals, access to mentors, and institutional funding opportunities. This study evaluated the effectiveness and outcomes of the PTSP and provides a framework for replication.

METHOD

A query of institutional demographic data and bibliometric variables of the PSTP participants (2017-2020) at a single academic medical center was conducted in 2021. In addition, a voluntary survey collected personal and program evaluation information.

RESULTS

Of 145 PSTP scholars, 59 (41%) were women, and 41 (31%), 8 (6%), and 6 (5%) of scholars self-identified as Asian, Hispanic, and Black, respectively. Thirty-three (23%) scholars received PSTP research support or career development microgrants. Of 66 PSTP graduates, 29 (44%) remained at Johns Hopkins as clinical fellows or faculty. Of 48 PSTP graduates in a posttraining position, 42 (88%) were in academia, with the majority, 29 (76%), holding the rank of assistant professor. Fifty-nine of 140 available participants responded to the survey (42% response rate). The top-cited reason for joining the PSTP was exposure to mentors and administration (50/58 respondents, 86%), followed by seeking scholarly opportunities (37/58 respondents, 64%). Most scholars intended to continue a career as a physician-scientist.

CONCLUSIONS

The PSTP provides internal research support and institutional oversight. Although establishing close mentor-mentee relationships requires individualized approaches, the PSTP provided structured academic pathways that enhanced participating scholars' ability to apply for grants and jobs. The vast majority continued their careers as physician-scientists after training. In light of the national evidence of a "leaky physician-scientist pipeline," programs such as the PSTP can be critical to entry into early academic career positions and institutional retention.

Medicine Meets Science: The Imperative of Scientific Research and Publishing for Physician-Scientists

Physician-scientists serve as conduits between clinical practice and scientific research, leveraging their unique expertise to improve patient care and drive medical innovation. This article highlights the indispensable role of research and publishing in promoting evidence-based practices, facilitating professional growth, and shaping public health policy. Drawing on historical and contemporary examples, I examine the challenges faced by physician-scientists, such as ethical dilemmas and declining engagement in research, particularly in resource-constrained settings. I suggest pragmatic strategies to overcome these barriers, emphasizing the need for systemic support, ethical integrity, and the equitable dissemination of advancements. This piece aims to inspire a new generation of physician-scientists to engage deeply with both clinical and research domains, thus advancing global health equity and resilience.

The financial impact of MD-PhD training compared with MD training for academic physicians

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.

Resident Self-Efficacy in Grantsmanship Lags Behind Key Funding Deadlines

PURPOSE

Extramural funding is critical to career success and advancement in academic surgery, and surgical residents can apply for both societal and federal funding. Many federal funding mechanisms require proposals to be submitted before residents' formal research years.

METHODS

To better understand the resident experience with grantsmanship, we distributed a validated grantsmanship self-efficacy assessment inventory for voluntary completion at our academic general surgery training program with 2 years of dedicated research. The survey covers 3 domains: conceptualizing, designing and analyzing, and funding a study. All questions are scored 0 to 10 with 0 indicating no confidence and 10 indicating complete confidence. Median scores for the 3 domains were calculated for all respondents and compared between training years using Kruskal-Wallis with post-hoc Dunn testing.

RESULTS

Forty-four surveys were completed with a response rate of 84%. Resident self-efficacy in grantsmanship improved throughout the training years with the greatest changes being in their comfort with conceptualizing and funding a study. Dunn testing identified specific differences between PGY2 and PGY7 comfort with conceptualizing studies (median 5 vs. 7.5, p = 0.003) and understanding of funding mechanisms (median 2.0 vs. 7, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

While comfort with conceptualizing and funding studies does increase throughout the training years, this often develops after critical funding deadlines have already passed and can disadvantage surgical residents interested in academic careers. A curriculum that emphasizes familiarity with the grant writing and funding processes may better facilitate long term career success.

A Faculty-Centered Career Consultation Service in an Academic Health Sciences Center: Five Years of Presenting Problems, Demographics, and Recommendations

Psychologists in faculty affairs/faculty development (FAFD) roles can contribute to faculty vitality in academic health centers (AHCs) and mitigate barriers to advancement and retention. We describe a novel psychologist-led consultation service within an Office for Faculty Success (OFS) to support faculty across their career trajectories. We used 5 years of consultation data including faculty demographics, presenting concerns, and post-consultation evaluation data on consultation satisfaction and perceived benefits to examine trends and demographic group differences in consultation frequency, presenting concerns, and perceived benefits. From 2018 to 2023, 434 individuals presented for 683 consultations. Promotion in rank was the most frequent presenting concern. Women and racially/ethically minoritized faculty were found to present more frequently for repeat consultations, for concerns related to careers negotiation and advancement, and for intersectionality issues specific to gender and/or racial minority identities. From years one to five, there was a 93% increase in number of annual consultations performed and users were highly satisfied with the service (3.86/4). The consultation service is a unique, highly acceptable addition to interventions focused on career satisfaction and retention for AHC faculty, especially for women, early career, and minoritized faculty, and can serve as a model for other institutions.

The Center for Health Outcomes in Medicine Scholarship and Service (HOMES): Fostering and Supporting Physician-Initiated Research

ABSTRACT

ProblemThe U.S. physician scholar workforce, currently comprising less than 1.5% of U.S. physicians, continues to decrease, threatening national status as a global biomedical research leader. Academic medical center (AMC) trends away from tenure-track physician faculty appointments toward clinical faculty appointments have contributed to this decrease, but AMCs have limited strategies to equip clinical faculty to conduct research. Infrastructure fostering clinical faculty research may establish new mechanisms for expanding physician scholar workforce and supporting academic goals of clinical faculty. This article presents one such model, the Center for Health Outcomes in Medicine Scholarship and Service (HOMES), from the Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University College of Medicine.ApproachEstablished in 2019, HOMES provides research infrastructure, support, and mentorship tailored to clinical faculty needs. Multidisciplinary core faculty support research across 5 cores: clinical networks, biostatistics and secondary data, qualitative methods, mixed methods, and research ethics. HOMES services include research consultation, mentorship, microgrants, a training toolkit, and symposia.OutcomesIn 4 years, HOMES supported 50 faculty on 99 projects. Forty-five (90%) of these faculty have reported scholarly output, including 127 national presentations, authorship on 41 peer-reviewed articles, and 53 grant submissions. Forty HOMES-supported grant submissions have received funding, and 4 HOMES-supported physicians in training have pursued or plan to pursue AMC research careers.Next StepsHOMES has fostered scholarly productivity among AMC physicians, competitive grant applications, and research focus among physicians in training. As demand for HOMES services increases, HOMES will prioritize projects based on their innovation and research skill development potential. Academic medical centers can apply HOMES lessons through fostering clinical faculty collaboration with multidisciplinary research teams and increasing research training opportunities for residents and fellows. National expansion of funding opportunities dedicated to building biomedical research capacity and expertise among clinical faculty can facilitate sustainable scaling of HOMES-like models.

Physician-scientists' perspectives on key factors, emotions and feelings about selecting and attending continuous professional development events: a mixed-method study

BACKGROUND

Almost 40% of the Nobel-Prize-winning discoveries in medicine are made by physician-scientists, who are a driving force in the evolving medical, academic and research landscape. However, their training has few defined milestones. To be effective clinicians, educators and researchers, they need to maintain and hone skills, often via continuous professional development (CPD) activities covering different domains. They have recurrently been described as an endangered species. Yet, warnings and recommendations across several decades did not stop the declining number of physician-scientists, which is now a chronic issue. This is further exacerbated by a lack of resources and support, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

We administered a questionnaire called Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS-GEN) to get an initial emotional snapshot before performing individual semi-structured interviews with five physician-scientists in neurology working in the United Kingdom. We explored the key factors they balance before selecting CPD activities, along with their views on compulsory CPD events and assessments. We investigated their general feelings towards compulsory and non-compulsory CPD, how they felt the night before and the morning of the events, and the perceived consequences attending these have on their learning.

RESULTS

In our study, physician-scientists tend to choose training in their area of expertise but would enjoy exploring more if they had more time. The CPD choice was chiefly driven by speakers and topics, followed by learning needs. They disputed the utility of the current assessments, which are often seen as box-ticking exercises. While frustration, hostility and negative feelings were voiced for the compulsory ones, other CPD activities were welcomed with excitement, curiosity and a sense of adventure. Enthusiasm and excitement were felt the night before and the morning of the non-compulsory ones. CPD events were perceived to positively affect further learning, with the most immediate consequences being reading an article, networking or interacting with the speakers.

DISCUSSION

This is the first study exploring the key factors driving a group of physician-scientists while selecting CPD activities and investigating their feelings and emotions related to CPD attendance. More engaging and less box-ticking CPD should be on the cards, along with an adequate evaluation of these activities. It is essential to increase enthusiasm, which can facilitate engagement, and decrease frustration surrounding compulsory CPD activities. We still know too little about the role of emotions in learning, especially about CPD. Future studies should investigate the emotional side of learning across different career stages to restore the leaky pipeline and create a tailored environment with benefits for each of the three sides of the physician-scientist's identity: the clinical, the research, and the academic.

Preparing Physician-Scientists for the Future of Academic Medicine

The changing field of academic medicine presents unique challenges for physician-scientists, who intricately weave the complexities of research and patient care. These challenges have significantly lengthened the time needed for scientific discoveries to be applied in clinical practice. In response to these escalating demands, the training trajectory for physician-scientists has notably expanded over recent decades. In anticipation of and preparation for future training requirements, the National Pediatrician-Scientist Collaborative Workgroup facilitated a series of convenings with a diverse array of stakeholders vested in physician-scientist training. The framework Strategic Foresight was used to explore possible future scenarios and develop strategic plans. Seven pivotal themes, termed "performance zones," emerged from this endeavor: (1) revolution in education through technology-enhanced learning, (2) educational outcomes beyond content mastery, (3) artificial intelligence-empowered research portfolios and expansive networks, (4) evolution of high-performance inclusive, equitable, distributed, and agile teams, (5) evolution of antifragile systems, (6) a multiparadigmatic program of research, and (7) interdependence and commitments to a common agenda for collective impact. These identified zones underscore the imperative for physician-scientists to acquire novel skill sets essential for navigating the impending shifts in the health care landscape. These findings are poised to steer policy initiatives and educational advancements, fortifying the foundation for future physician-scientist training needs.

Expanding pathways to clinical and translational research training with stackable microcredentials: A pilot study

Introduction

The proportion of physician-investigators involved in biomedical research is shrinking even as the need for high-quality, interdisciplinary research is growing. Building the physician-investigator workforce is thus a pressing concern. Flexible, "light-weight" training modalities can help busy physician-investigators prepare for key stages of the research life cycle and personalize their learning to their own needs. Such training can also support researchers from diverse backgrounds and lighten the work of mentors.

Materials and Methods

The University of Pittsburgh's Institute for Clinical Research Education designed the Stackables Microcredentials in Clinical and Translational Research (Stackables) program to provide flexible, online training to supplement and enhance formal training programs. This training utilizes a self-paced, just-in-time format along with an interactive, storytelling approach to sustain learner engagement. Learners earn badges for completing modules and certificates for completing "stacks" in key competency areas. In this paper, we describe the genesis and development of the Stackables program and report the results of a pilot study in which we evaluated changes in confidence in key skill areas from pretest to posttest, as well as engagement and perceived effectiveness.

Results

Our Stackables pilot study showed statistically significant gains in learner confidence in all skill areas from pretest to posttest. Pilot participants reported that the module generated high levels of engagement and enhanced their skills, knowledge, and interest in the subject.

Conclusions

Stackables provide an important complement to formal coursework by focusing on discrete skill areas and allowing learners to access the training they need when they need it.

Changes in self-confidence in professional, personal, and scientific skills by gender during physician-scientist training at the University of Pittsburgh

Introduction

Persistence in physician-scientist careers has been suboptimal, particularly among women. There is a gender gap in self-confidence in medicine. We measured the impact of our physician-scientist training programs on trainee's confidence in professional, personal, and scientific competencies, using a survey measuring self-rated confidence in 36 competencies across two timepoints.

Methods

Results were analyzed for the full survey and for thematic subscales identified through exploratory factor analysis (EFA). A mixed effects linear model and a difference in differences (DID) design were used to assess the differential impact of the programing by gender and career level.

Results

Analysis included 100 MD-PhD or MD-only medical student or resident/fellow trainees enrolled between 2020 and 2023. Five subscales were identified through EFA; career sustainability, science productivity, grant management, goal setting, and goal alignment (Cronbach's alpha 0.85-0.94). Overall, mean scores increased significantly for all five subscales. Women significantly increased their confidence levels in all five areas, whereas men increased only in science productivity and grant management. Mixed effects models showed significant increases over time for women compared to men in career sustainability and goal alignment. Residents and fellows had greater increases than medical students across all subscales.

Conclusion

Physician-scientist trainees fellows increased their confidence in personal, professional, and scientific skills during training. Training had a greater impact on women than men in building confidence in sustaining careers and aligning their goals with professional and institutional priorities. The magnitude of increased confidence among residents and fellows exceeded that in medical students.

Interventions to support fellowship application success among predoctoral physician-scientists

A critical element of physician-scientist training is the development and practice of core competencies that promote success in research careers. The ability to develop compelling training and research proposals is one such foundational skill. The NIH Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) individual fellowship for dual-degree students (F30, F31, or F31-Diversity) creates an ideal opportunity to provide formal instruction in grant-writing skills to physician-scientists early in training. In the guided process of preparing a predoctoral fellowship application, students learn to formulate clear short- and long-term research and training goals; construct a comprehensive, well-reasoned, and rigorous proposal; become familiar with funding agency priorities; and gain strategic insights into the peer review system. Beyond building scientific writing skills, the application process for an NRSA F30 or F31 is an opportunity for trainees to strengthen mentor-mentee relationships, identify learning opportunities key to their scientific development, and build effective research and mentoring teams. These skills also apply to developing future postdoctoral mentored K applications or faculty research program grants. Here, we outline key features of the structured proposal development training developed for students in the Yale MD-PhD Program and review outcomes associated with its implementation.

Early Initiative of Structured Mentoring and Research for Social Disadvantage Trainees to Increase Diversity and Inclusion among Clinician Scientists

Background

There is a significant lag in integrating ethnically diverse healthcare trainees as clinician scientists. Although this gap is acknowledged, it is mostly focused physician scientists with a marked lag in dental scientists and the other healthcare fields such as the physician assistant program. We report on the outcome of three cohorts of underserved and economically disadvantaged trainees from a National Institute of Health Heart and Lung Blood Institute R25 summer training program with participants from four Rutgers Health Science schools.

Objective

The goal was to support inclusivity within clinician scientist workforce through career development and education.

Methods

We tested the hypothesis that early formal training with structured mentoring, research, career development, and didactic lectures will inspire trainees towards careers as clinician scientists. Trainees learned from the integration of research within the four health profession schools. We used a survey to assess how mentorship, research and career/educational development influence trainees' attitude for careers as clinician scientists. Career development included science communication, mentoring, data reproducibility, authorship, ethics in research, and models of healthcare institutional leadership.

Results

>80% of the trainees continued their engagement in research with peer-reviewed publications, with confidence to engage in scientific discussion. Trainees developed a sense of belonging and a psychological safety net as they integrate with other groups of academic fields with confidence. Among 29 contacts, 87% responded. Less than 10% of incoming trainees indicated research in their career plans, which changed to >90% after one summer.

Conclusions

Overall, this training program could serve as a `blueprint' for other programs to enhance careers in research, and to narrow the diversity gap among clinician scientists. Diversity among clinician scientists will enhance healthcare and disparities, and scientific innovation. Success would narrow the diversity gap among clinician scientists.

Transforming the Future of Surgeon-Scientists

OBJECTIVE

To create a blueprint for surgical department leaders, academic institutions, and funding agencies to optimally support surgeon-scientists.

BACKGROUND

Scientific contributions by surgeons have been transformative across many medical disciplines. Surgeon-scientists provide a distinct approach and mindset toward key scientific questions. However, lack of institutional support, pressure for increased clinical productivity, and growing administrative burden are major challenges for the surgeon-scientist, as is the time-consuming nature of surgical training and practice.

METHODS

An American Surgical Association Research Sustainability Task Force was created to outline a blueprint for sustainable science in surgery. Leaders from top NIH-sponsored departments of surgery engaged in video and in-person meetings between January and April 2023. A strength, weakness, opportunities, threats analysis was performed, and workgroups focused on the roles of surgeons, the department and institutions, and funding agencies.

RESULTS

Taskforce recommendations: (1) SURGEONS: Growth mindset : identifying research focus, long-term planning, patience/tenacity, team science, collaborations with disparate experts; Skill set : align skills and research, fill critical skill gaps, develop team leadership skills; DEPARTMENT OF SURGERY (DOS): (2) MENTORSHIP: Chair : mentor-mentee matching/regular meetings/accountability, review of junior faculty progress, mentorship training requirement, recognition of mentorship (eg, relative value unit equivalent, awards; Mentor: dedicated time, relevant scientific expertise, extramural funding, experience and/or trained as mentor, trusted advisor; Mentee : enthusiastic/eager, proactive, open to feedback, clear about goals; (3) FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY: diversification of research portfolio, identification of matching funding sources, departmental resource awards (eg, T-/P-grants), leveraging of institutional resources, negotiation of formalized/formulaic funds flow investment from academic medical center toward science, philanthropy; (4) STRUCTURAL/STRATEGIC SUPPORT: Structural: grants administrative support, biostats/bioinformatics support, clinical trial and research support, regulatory support, shared departmental laboratory space/equipment; Strategic: hiring diverse surgeon-scientist/scientists faculty across DOS, strategic faculty retention/ recruitment, philanthropy, career development support, progress tracking, grant writing support, DOS-wide research meetings, regular DOS strategic research planning; (5) COMMUNITY AND CULTURE: Community: right mix of faculty, connection surgeon with broad scientific community; Culture: building research infrastructure, financial support for research, projecting importance of research (awards, grand rounds, shoutouts); (6) THE ROLE OF INSTITUTIONS: Foundation: research space co-location, flexible start-up packages, courses/mock study section, awards, diverse institutional mentorship teams; Nurture: institutional infrastructure, funding (eg, endowed chairs), promotion friendly toward surgeon-scientists, surgeon-scientists in institutional leadership positions; Expectations: RVU target relief, salary gap funding, competitive starting salaries, longitudinal salary strategy; (7) THE ROLE OF FUNDING AGENCIES: change surgeon research training paradigm, offer alternate awards to K-awards, increasing salary cap to reflect market reality, time extension for surgeon early-stage investigator status, surgeon representation on study section, focused award strategies for professional societies/foundations.

CONCLUSIONS

Authentic recommitment from surgeon leaders with intentional and ambitious actions from institutions, corporations, funders, and society is essential in order to reap the essential benefits of surgeon-scientists toward advancements of science.

Challenges and opportunities in research funding for neurovascular diseases from a clinical researcher's perspective

BACKGROUND & PURPOSE

Neurovascular research is underfunded, imposing substantial challenges on clinical researchers in the field of neurovascular diseases. We explored what physicians perceive to be the greatest challenges with regard to neurovascular research funding, and how they think the funding crisis in neurovascular research could be overcome.

METHODS

We performed an international, multi-disciplinary survey among physicians involved in the medical care of patients with neurovascular diseases. After providing their demographic data, physicians were asked closed-ended questions on their personal opinion regarding challenges in neurovascular research funding, and how these challenges could be overcome. Physicians also described in their own words what they perceived to be the biggest challenges in obtaining funding. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and response clustering.

RESULTS

Of 233 participating physicians (70.4% male,82.8% senior staff) from 48 countries, 217(97.4%) perceived the discrepancy between required and available funding to be a problem;172(73.8%) considered it a major problem. High competitiveness (61/118 available free text responses[51.7%]), time-consuming application processes (28/118[23.7%]) and administrative requirements (25/118[21.1%]) were identified as key obstacles. Traditional big funding agencies were perceived to be most capable of closing the neurovascular research funding gap, followed by specialty-specific organizations and industry, while philanthropy and crowdfunding were perceived to be less important.

CONCLUSION

The gap between required and available funding was perceived to be a major problem in neurovascular research, with high competitiveness, time-consuming funding processes and excessive administrative requirements being the key obstacles to obtaining funding. Traditional funding agencies were perceived to be most capable of closing this funding gap.

Translating the Value of the Academic Surgeon Into Salary, Time, and Resources

Academic surgeons provide tremendous value to institutions including notoriety, publicity, cutting-edge clinical advances, extramural funding, and academic growth and development. In turn, these attributes may result in improved reputation scores and hospital or medical center rankings. While many hospital systems, schools of medicine, and departments of surgery claim to have a major commitment to academic surgery and research, academic surgeons are often undercompensated compared to clinically focused counterparts. Existing salary benchmarks (e.g., the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) or the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC)) are often used but are imperfect. Thus, the value proposition for academic surgeons goes beyond compensation and often includes protected time for academic pursuit, nonsalary financial support, and other intangible benefits to being associated with a major academic center (e.g., abundance of scientific collaborators, infrastructure for grant management). As a result, institution-specific practices have developed and academic surgeons are left to negotiate salary support including bonus structures, protected time, and recruitment packages on a case-by-case basis without a clear roadmap. A diverse panel representing a range of academic surgical experiences was convened at the 2022 Academic Surgical Congress to illuminate this complex, often stress-inducing, aspect of an academic surgeon's professional career.

Dispersion of NIH Funding to Departments of Surgery is Contracting

INTRODUCTION

NIH funding to departments of surgery reported as benchmark Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research (BRIMR) rankings are unclear.

METHODS

We analyzed inflation-adjusted BRIMR-reported NIH funding to departments of surgery and medicine between 2011 and 2021.

RESULTS

NIH funding to departments of surgery and medicine both increased 40% from 2011 to 2021 ($325 million to $454 million; $3.8 billion to $5.3 billion, P < 0.001 for both). The number of BRIMR-ranked departments of surgery decreased 14% during this period while departments of medicine increased 5% (88 to 76 versus 111 to 116; P < 0.001). There was a greater increase in the total number of medicine PIs versus surgery PIs during this period (4377 to 5224 versus 557 to 649; P < 0.001). These trends translated to further concentration of NIH-funded PIs in medicine versus surgery departments (45 PIs/program versus 8.5 PIs/program; P < 0.001). NIH funding and PIs/program in 2021 were respectively 32 and 20 times greater for the top versus lowest 15 BRIMR-ranked surgery departments ($244 million versus $7.5 million [P < 0.01]; 20.5 versus 1.3 [P < 0.001]). Twelve (80%) of the top 15 surgery departments maintained this ranking over the 10-year study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Although NIH funding to departments of surgery and medicine is growing at a similar rate, departments of medicine and top-funded surgery departments have greater funding and concentration of PIs/program versus surgery departments overall and lowest-funded surgery departments. Strategies used by top-performing departments to obtain and maintain funding may assist less well-funded departments in obtaining extramural research funding, thus broadening the access of surgeon-scientists to perform NIH-supported research.

"Walking on both sides of the fence": A qualitative exploration of the challenges and opportunities facing emergent clinician-scientists in child health

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

While paediatric clinician-scientists are ideally positioned to generate clinically relevant research and translate research evidence into practice, they face challenges in this dual role. The authors sought to explore the unique contributions, opportunities, and challenges of paediatric clinician-scientists, including issues related to training and ongoing support needs to ensure their success.

METHOD

The authors used a qualitative descriptive approach with thematic analysis to explore the experiences of clinician-scientist stakeholders in child health (n = 39). Semi-structured interviews (60 min) were conducted virtually and recorded. Thematic analysis was conducted according to the phases outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006).

RESULTS

The analysis resulted in the creation of three themes: (1) "Walking on both sides of the fence": unique positioning of clinician-scientists for advancing clinical practice and research; (2) the clinician-scientist: a specialized role with significant challenges; and (3) beyond the basics of clinical and research training programmes: essential skill sets and knowledge for future clinician-scientists.

CONCLUSIONS

While clinician-scientists can make unique contributions to the advancement of evidence-based practice, they face significant barriers straddling their dual roles including divergent institutional cultures in healthcare and academia and a lack of infrastructure to effectively support clinician-scientist positions. Training programmes can play an important role in mentoring and supporting early-career clinician-scientists.

Research in orthopaedic trauma surgery: approaches of basic scientists and clinicians and the relevance of interprofessional research teams

BACKGROUND

An increasing clinical workload and growing financial, administrative and legal burdens as well as changing demands regarding work-life balance have resulted in an increased emphasis on clinical practice at the expense of research activities by orthopaedic trauma surgeons. This has led to an overall decrease in the number of scientifically active clinicians in orthopaedic trauma surgery, which represents a serious burden on research in this field. In order to guarantee that the clinical relevance of this discipline is also mirrored in the scientific field, new concepts are needed to keep clinicians involved in research.

METHODS

Literature review and discussion of the results of a survey.

RESULTS/CONCLUSION

An interdisciplinary and -professional team approach involving clinicians and basic scientists with different fields of expertise appears to be a promising method. Although differences regarding motivation, research focuses, funding rates and sources as well as inhibitory factors for research activities between basic scientists and clinicians exist, successful and long-lasting collaborations have already proven fruitful. For further implementation of the team approach, diverse prerequisites are necessary. Among those measures, institutions (e.g. societies, universities etc.) must shift the focus of their support mechanisms from independent scientist models to research team performances.

Physician-Scientists: Fixing the Leaking Pipeline - A Scoping Review

Introduction

This scoping review was undertaken to assess the current status of physician-scientists, including the challenges associated with their enrollment and retention, measures of success, and determinants of their satisfaction, all of which contribute to the dwindling numbers of physician-scientists aptly referred to as a "leaking pipeline" of physician-scientists.

Methods

A total of 2555 research documents from three databases, viz. Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed, were selected. A total of 40 documents were considered for final analysis following the 5-stage framework of Arksey and O'Malle.

Results

Medical institutions should promote and sustain enrollments by addressing various perceived parameters of success and satisfaction. The challenge of attrition due to individual, regulatory, and sociocultural considerations also needs to be addressed.

Conclusions

Medical institutions should focus on establishing well-documented career tracks with provisions for career advancement, promotion of team science, raising mentors, giving preference to students with peer-reviewed publications for post graduate (PG) admissions, and establishing a separate office for career development and guidance for physician-scientist. It is equally important to address the factors which promote retention and prevent attrition, viz. measures of success and determinants of satisfaction. Additional measures include creating a cadre of physician-scientists in government organizations, fostering collaboration of physician-scientists with incubation centers and startups, and adding additional mandatory curriculum components focused on project-based training.

Outcomes of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute K12 program in emergency care research: 7-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Long-term follow-up for clinician-scientist training programs is sparse. We describe the outcomes of clinician-scientist scholars in the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) K12 program in emergency care research up to 8.7 years after matriculation in the program.

METHODS

This was a cohort study of faculty clinician-scientist scholars enrolled in a NHLBI K12 research training program at 6 sites across the US, with median follow-up 7.7 years (range 5.7-8.7 years) from the date of matriculation. Scholars completed electronic surveys in 2017 and 2019, with the 2019 survey collecting information for their current work setting, percent time for research, and grant funding from all sources. We used NIH RePorter and online resources to verify federal grants through March 2021. The primary outcome was a funded career development award (CDA) or research project grant (RPG) where the scholar was principal investigator. We included funding from all federal sources and national foundations.

RESULTS

There were 43 scholars, including 16 (37%) women. Over the follow-up period, 32 (74%) received an individual CDA or RPG, with a median of 36 months (range 9-83 months) after entering the program. Of the 43 scholars, 23 (54%) received a CDA and 22 (51%) received an RPG, 7 (16%) of which were R01s. Of the 23 scholars who received a CDA, 13 (56%) subsequently had an RPG funded. Time to CDA or RPG did not differ by sex (women vs. men log-rank test p = 0.27) or specialty training (emergency medicine versus other specialties, p = 0.59).

CONCLUSIONS

After 7 years of follow-up for this NHLBI K12 emergency care research training program, three quarters of clinician-scientist scholars had obtained CDA or RPG funding, with no notable differences by sex or clinical training.

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.

The Drug Abuse Research Training (DART) Program for Psychiatry Residents and Summer Fellows: 15-Year Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To increase the number of physician-scientists in research, the Drug Abuse Research Training (DART) program at the Medical University of South Carolina offers a 2-year research track for psychiatry residents and a 10-week summer fellowship for students. The goal of this study was to examine program outcomes and alumni diversity levels over DART's 15-year history.

METHODS

To date, 215 trainees (44 residents, 171 summer fellows) have completed the program. An anonymous online survey was sent to the 143 program alumni with valid contact information. Survey data included demographic characteristics, post-program research involvement, and self-reported barriers to continued research engagement.

RESULTS

Overall survey completion response was 83.5% (N = 122). The alumni included 59.0% women, and 36.1% of respondents identified as a member of a minority racial/ethnic group. Following program completion, 77.0% of the alumni reported continued research involvement. More than half of the alumni reported scientific publications (57.4%) and conference presentations (63.1%) since completing DART. Among respondents who did not subsequently engage in research, the most common modifiable barriers included difficulty finding a mentor, self-perceived deficits in statistical skills and research methodology, and overall lack of confidence in research ability.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past 15 years, the DART program has established a diverse research training program that now spans the educational spectrum from undergraduate to residency training. Future program goals include additional training to address self-reported modifiable research barriers. This program provides a model for other training programs designed to cultivate research interests and promote the diversity of clinical researchers.

A Competency-Guided Approach to Optimizing a Physician-Scientist Curriculum

Physician-scientists are uniquely positioned to achieve significant biomedical advances to improve the human condition. Their clinical and scientific training allows them to bridge fields and contribute to cutting-edge, clinically relevant research. The need for a highly skilled physician-scientist workforce has never been more acute. We propose a competency-guided program design (CGPD) framework that focuses on core skills to enhance the physician-scientist training curriculum. In partnership with clinical and graduate curricula, the CGPD framework can be employed as a tool to meaningfully integrate physician-scientist training, address barriers to attract and sustain the physician-scientist workforce, and avoid overprogramming that detracts from a solid foundation of clinical and graduate research training.

Perinatal Research Society's Young Investigator Workshop Prepares the Next Generation of Investigators

Sustaining impactful research within the field of perinatal biology requires training and retention of the next generations of physician-scientists and basic-scientists. Professional societies such as the Perinatal Research Society (PRS) have a unique role to play in training and retention of perinatal biologists. Here we report outcomes for an innovative Young Investigator Training Workshop created for the PRS. The PRS Workshop uses immersive, active-writing, and active-oral presentation design, with one-on-one feedback from NIH-funded faculty-mentors drawn from the PRS membership. Young investigator data were collected by anonymous surveys of young investigators, NIH RePORTER, and individual young investigator follow-up. Ninety-seven young investigators attended the Workshops over the period 2013-2018. Young investigators were physician- (73%) and PhD- (27%) scientists at the rank of clinical fellow/postdoctoral fellow (27%) or instructor/assistant professor (73%). Participation by underrepresented minority (URM) young investigators was 14%. Young investigators received NIH and non-NIH funding, with 80% of young investigators receiving new funding since the Workshop that they attended. NIH funding was received by 31% of young investigators in the form of K-series awards, R01 equivalents, and other NIH awards. In conclusion, our PRS young investigator Workshop serves as a model to facilitate training of emerging physician- and basic-scientists by scientific societies.

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.

Medical student residency preferences and motivational factors: a longitudinal, single-institution perspective

BACKGROUND

A high proportion of medical school graduates pursue specialties different from those declared at matriculation. While these choices influence the career paths, satisfaction, and potential regret students will experience, they also impact the supply and demand ratio of the shorthanded physician workforce across many specialties. In this study, we investigate how the choice of medical specialty and the factors motivating those choices change between the beginning and end of medical school training.

METHODS

A questionnaire was administered annually from 2017 to 2020 to a cohort of medical students at the University of Connecticut to determine longitudinal preferences regarding residency choice, motivational factors influencing residency choice, future career path, and demographic information.

RESULTS

The questionnaire respondent totals were as follows: n = 76 (Year 1), n = 54 (Year 2), n = 31 (Year 3), and n = 65 (Year 4). Amongst newly matriculated students, 25.0% were interested in primary care, which increased ~ 1.4-fold to 35.4% in the final year of medical school. In contrast, 38.2% of matriculated students expressed interest in surgical specialties, which decreased ~ 2.5-fold to 15.4% in the final year. Specialty choices in the final year that exhibited the largest absolute change from matriculation were orthopedic surgery (- 9.9%), family medicine (+ 8.1%), radiology (+ 7.9%), general surgery (- 7.2%), and anesthesiology (+ 6.2%). Newly matriculated students interested in primary care demonstrated no differences in their ranking of motivational factors compared to students interested in surgery, but many of these factors significantly deviated between the two career paths in the final year. Specifically, students interested in surgical specialties were more motivated by the rewards of salary and prestige compared to primary care students, who more highly ranked match confidence and family/location factors.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified how residency choices change from the beginning to the end of medical school, how certain motivational factors change with time, how these results diverge between primary care and surgery specialty choice, and propose a new theory based on risk-reward balance regarding residency choice. Our study promotes awareness of student preferences and may help guide school curricula in developing more student-tailored training approaches. This could foster positive long-term changes regarding career satisfaction and the physician workforce.

We Have No Choice but to Transform: The Future of Medical Education After the COVID-19 Pandemic

Medical education exists to prepare the physician workforce that our nation needs, but the COVID-19 pandemic threatened to disrupt that mission. Likewise, the national increase in awareness of social justice gaps in our country pointed out significant gaps in health care, medicine, and our medical education ecosystem. Crises in all industries often present leaders with no choice but to transform-or to fail. In this perspective, the authors suggest that medical education is at such an inflection point and propose a transformational vision of the medical education ecosystem, followed by a 10-year, 10-point plan that focuses on building the workforce that will achieve that vision. Broad themes include adopting a national vision; enhancing medicine's role in social justice through broadened curricula and a focus on communities; establishing equity in learning and processes related to learning, including wellness in learners, as a baseline; and realizing the promise of competency-based, time-variable training. Ultimately, 2020 can be viewed as a strategic inflection point in medical education if those who lead and regulate it analyze and apply lessons learned from the pandemic and its associated syndemics.

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.

The importance of motivation in selecting undergraduate medical students for extracurricular research programmes

INTRODUCTION

Extracurricular research programmes (ERPs) may contribute to reducing the current shortage in physician-scientists, but usually select students based on grades only. The question arises if students should be selected based on their motivation, regardless of their previous academic performance. Focusing on grades and lacking to take motivation into account when selecting students for ERPs might exclude an important target group when aiming to cultivate future physician-scientists. Therefore, this study compared ERP students with lower and higher previous academic performance on subsequent academic performance, ERP performance, and motivational factors.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study with undergraduate medical students who filled in a yearly questionnaire on motivational factors. Two student groups participating in an ERP were compared: students with first-year grade point average (GPA) ≥7 versus <7 on a 10-point grading scale. Linear and logistic regressions analyses were used to compare groups on subsequent academic performance (i.e. third-year GPA, in-time bachelor completion), ERP performance (i.e. drop-out, number of credits), and motivational factors (i.e. intrinsic motivation for research, research self-efficacy beliefs, perceptions of research, curiosity), while adjusting for gender and motivational factors at baseline.

RESULTS

The <7 group had significantly lower third-year GPA, and significantly higher odds for ERP drop-out than the ≥7 group. However, there was no significant between-group difference on in-time bachelor completion and the <7 group was not inferior to the ≥7 group in terms of intrinsic motivation for research, perceptions of research, and curiosity.

CONCLUSIONS

Since intrinsic motivation for research, perceptions of research, and curiosity are prerequisites of future research involvement, it seems beneficial to focus on motivation when selecting students for ERPS, allowing students with lower current academic performance to participate in ERPs as well.

National Institutes of Health Funding Trends to Ophthalmology Departments at U.S. Medical Schools

PURPOSE

To analyze trends in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding in ophthalmology and characterize its distribution to departments and principal investigators (PIs) affiliated with U.S. medical schools.

DESIGN

Longitudinal descriptive analysis.

METHODS

We queried publically accessible data from the Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research and NIH RePORTER to determine annual funding trends in ophthalmology from 2009 to 2020. To characterize the distribution of funding, we further ranked the top departments and principal investigators (PIs). Department websites (among other online resources) were utilized to extract characteristics of the latter cohort.

RESULTS

After adjusting for inflation, we observed a modest 9% increase in median NIH funding to academic ophthalmology departments between 2009 and 2020. In the same time period, among individual PIs, this translated to a 9% decline in median funding. Our results among both departments and PIs indicated a persistent inequality in NIH funding. In 2020, 10 ophthalmology departments received 44% of total funding, which is consistent with findings from prior years. Our ranking of PIs by average annual NIH funding indicated a disproportionate representation of males (76%) and PhDs (58%) in the top 50.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the results of this investigation suggest NIH funding remains limited for individual investigators, reflecting the increasingly competitive nature of the grant application process. Systemic alterations will be required to reverse these trends. If not accomplished, nascent and established researchers alike will continue to endure challenges in obtaining and maintaining funding.

First steps in the physician-scientist pipeline: a longitudinal study to examine the effects of an undergraduate extracurricular research programme

OBJECTIVES

Medicine is facing a physician-scientist shortage. By offering extracurricular research programmes (ERPs), the physician-scientist training pipeline could already start in undergraduate phases of medical training. However, previous studies into the effects of ERPs are mainly retrospective and lack baseline measurements and control groups. Therefore, the current study mimics a randomised controlled trial to examine the effects of an ERP.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study with baseline measurement and comparable control group.

SETTING

One cohort of 315 medical undergraduates in one Dutch University Medical Center are surveyed yearly. To examine the effects of the ERP on academic achievement and motivational factors, regression analyses were used to compare ERP students to students showing ERP-interest only, adjusted for relevant baseline scores.

PARTICIPANTS

Out of the 315 students of the whole cohort, 56 participated within the ERP and are thus included. These ERP students are compared with 38 students showing ERP-interest only (ie, control group).

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Academic achievement after 2 years (ie, in-time bachelor completion, bachelor grade point average (GPA)) and motivational factors after 18 months (ie, intrinsic motivation for research, research self-efficacy, perceptions of research, curiosity).

RESULTS

ERP participation is related to a higher odds of obtaining a bachelor degree in the appointed amount of time (adjusted OR=2.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 10.52). Furthermore, starting the ERP resulted in higher levels of intrinsic motivation for research, also after adjusting for gender, age, first-year GPA and motivational baseline scores (β=0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.63). No effect was found on research self-efficacy beliefs, perceptions of research and curiosity.

CONCLUSIONS

Previous research suggested that intrinsic motivation is related to short-term and long-term research engagement. As our findings indicate that starting the ERP is related to increased levels of intrinsic motivation for research, ERPs for undergraduates could be seen as an important first step in the physician-scientist pipeline.

Changing Demographics of NIDDK-Funded Physician-Scientists Doing Kidney Research

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Although US physician-scientists have made enormous contributions to biomedical research, this workforce is thought to be getting smaller. However, among kidney researchers, changes have not been fully quantified.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We mined National Institutes of Health RePORTER to explore demographic changes of early-career and established physician and nonphysician principal investigators doing kidney-focused research. We searched for National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)-funded K series and R01 awards focused on the kidney that were active between 1990 and 2020 and determined if their emphasis was basic or clinical science. We then used public databases available on the internet to determine if these funded investigators were physicians or nonphysicians, the year in which they received either their MD (physicians) or their terminal graduate degree (nonphysicians), their sex, and whether they received their terminal degree from a US or international institution.

RESULTS

Kidney-focused R01-funded principal investigators are aging, particularly among physicians. Moreover, the relative representation of physicians among both early-career and established principal investigators is falling, particularly among those doing basic science research. In contrast, the number and relative representation of nonphysician-scientists are increasing. There is also greater representation of women and international graduates among physician and nonphysician R01-funded, kidney-focused NIDDK investigators. However, although there are greater numbers of women physician principal investigators doing both basic as well as clinical research, women physician principal investigators are increasingly more likely to do clinical rather than basic science research.

CONCLUSIONS

The physician-scientist workforce is increasingly made up of women and international medical graduates. However, the physician-scientist workforce is older and represents a smaller proportion of all principal investigators, particularly among those doing basic science research.

[The scope of clinical research]

La investigación clínica es la parte de la investigación médica que incluye la participación de los pacientes de manera integral sin separarlos de sus datos personales, imágenes y muestras histopatológicas o bioquímicas, para entender tanto la salud como la enfermedad.

A Novel Clinically Immersive Pre-doctoral Training Program for Engineering in Surgery and Intervention: Initial Realization and Preliminary Results

A novel pre-doctoral program is presented that combines (1) immersive observation in the surgical/interventional theatre and (2) thought-provoking exposition activities focused on answering clinically provocative questions. While the long-term goal is to train engineers to conduct clinical translational research in human systems, in this paper, perceived trainee improvements are assessed in: (1) their ability to pose important questions in surgery and intervention, (2) their knowledge of surgical technologies, and (3) their understanding of procedural medicine. The program combines constructivist and constructionist learning approaches through a dual-course suite consisting of: (1) a scaffold lecture design with ten physicians presenting their procedural specialties interleaved with lectures relating engineering principles, and (2) a second course with clinically mentored immersion experiences in the operating room/interventional suite, clinical conferences, and patient rounds. Details of the complementing technical core and learning environment are also provided. Preliminary data reports on the quantitative experiential clinical involvement and on a self-reported survey over 5 cohorts of trainees (n = 18). With respect to immersion, the average surgeries/interventions observed, number of different types, and clinical contact time per student was on average 15.6 ± 7.9 surgeries/interventions, 8.2 ± 3.6 types, and 48.2 ± 14.7 contact hours, respectively. With respect to trainee understanding of procedural medicine, surgical technologies, and value of clinical observation, an average perceived improvement of 41%, 38%, and 41% over the course series was detected, respectively (p < 0.001). Equally impressive, when rating ability to pose important questions affecting human health, an average perceived improvement of 34% was detected (p < 0.001). The preliminary realization of a novel pre-doctoral clinically immersive training program for engineering trainees is described and demonstrates extensive levels of clinical contact and strong evidence that the provided immersion experiences result in significant improvements in understanding of procedural medicine.

The Pediatric Workforce: Recent Data Trends, Questions, and Challenges for the Future

The future of the pediatric workforce has been the subject of significant dialogue in the pediatric community and generated much discussion in the academic literature. There are significant concerns regarding the ability of pediatricians to meet the growing demands of our pediatric population. Over the past 5 years, there has been a decline in the percentage of doctor of osteopathic medicine students who pursue a career in pediatrics but an equally important increase in the number of pediatric positions that are filled by doctor of osteopathic medicine students and international medical graduates. Although there has been an increase in the number of pediatric positions offered in the National Resident Matching Program, the last 4 years have seen a significant increase in the number of unfilled pediatric positions. A number of pediatric subspecialties struggle to fill their training positions, and those with low match rates may have 20% to 40% fewer applicants than positions. The pediatric vision for the future must include a commitment to a comprehensive strategic planning process with the many organizations involved across the multiple stages of the educational continuum. It is time to elucidate and address the questions raised by the workforce data. Developing solutions to these questions will require a careful planning process and a thoughtful analysis of the pediatric workforce data. Establishing this as an important priority will require a major collaborative effort between pediatric academic and professional organizations, but the future benefit to the nation's children will be significant.

Physician-scientist or basic scientist? Exploring the nature of clinicians' research engagement

Theoretical understanding of what motivates clinician researchers has met with some success in launching research careers, but it does not account for professional identification as a factor determining sustained research engagement over the long-term. Deeper understanding of clinicians' research-related motivation may better foster their sustained research engagement post-training and, by extension, the advancement of medicine and health outcomes. This study used an integrated theoretical framework (Social Cognitive Career Theory and Professional Identity Formation) and appreciative inquiry to explore the interplay of professional identification and research context in shaping post-training research success narratives. To foreground professional identification, 19 research-active clinicians and 17 basic scientists served as interviewees. A multi-institutional, multi-national design was used to explore how contextual factors shape external valuation of research success. The findings suggest that research-active clinicians do not identify as the career scientists implied by the modern physician-scientist construct and the goal of many clinician research-training programs. Their primary identification as care providers shapes their definition of research success around extending their clinical impact; institutional expectations and prevailing healthcare concerns that value this aim facilitate their sustained research engagement. Integrated developmental and organizational interventions adaptive to research context and conducive to a wider range of medical inquiry may better leverage clinicians' direct involvement in patient care and advance progress toward human health and well-being.

Science Scholars: Integrating Scientific Research Into Undergraduate Medical Education Through a Comprehensive Student-Led Preclinical Elective

INTRODUCTION

One of the goals of evidence-based medical education is to familiarize future health care practitioners with the scientific method so they can interpret scholarly literature and communicate appropriately with patients. However, many students lack the skills necessary to conduct research themselves. We describe a preclinical elective course designed to equip students with these skills through workshops, mentorship, and research experience.

METHODS

Through an application process, we selected first-year medical (M1) students who expressed interest in conducting basic, translational, or clinical research. Throughout the yearlong curriculum, students attended a series of 10 1-hour workshops to learn the skills necessary to engage in research. Additionally, each student was paired with a peer mentor. As their final project, students completed a specific aims page based on their projected research study.

RESULTS

Over the course of 3 years, 96% of students secured a research position for the summer following M1, and 36% secured positions at external institutions with nationally competitive funding, compared to 10% of their peers who did not participate in the elective. Of students, 80% indicated that this elective helped them find and secure these research positions, and 75% of students reported that they learned valuable skills not taught in their medical curriculum.

DISCUSSION

Participation in a preclinical research elective can provide immediate value in the form of research skills with the prospect of stimulating a lifelong interest in scientific inquiry. Our curriculum was delivered in a medical school setting, however it is applicable to any health care professional school.

NIH Funding for Surgeon-Scientists in the US: What Is the Current Status?

BACKGROUND

Recent literature suggests that the future of surgeon-scientists in the US has been threatened for the past several decades. However, we documented an overall increase in NIH funding for surgeon-scientists, as well as the number of NIH-funded surgeons, from 2010 to 2020.

STUDY DESIGN

NIH-funded principal investigators (PIs) were identified for June 2010 and June 2020 using the NIH internal data platform iSearch Grants (version 2.4). Biographical sketches were searched for key terms to identify surgeon-scientists. Grant research types and total grant costs were collected. American Association of Medical Colleges data were used to determine total surgeon and physician populations. Bivariate chi-square analyses were performed using population totals and were corroborated using z-tests of population proportions using JMP (version 13.0.0). A 2-tailed p value <0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

In June of 2020, a total of 1,031 surgeon-scientists held $872,456,710 in NIH funding. The percentage of funded surgeons significantly increased from 2010 (0.5%) to 2020 (0.7%) (p < 0.05), and the percentage of funded other physicians significantly decreased from 2.2% in 2010 to 1.6% in 2020 (p < 0.05). All surgeons sustained R grant funding at both time points (58% in 2020 and 60% in 2010), and specifically maintained basic science-focused R grants (73% in 2020 and 78% in 2010).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found surgeon-scientists are increasing in number and NIH funding and are becoming more diverse in their research efforts, while maintaining a focus on basic science.