The Highly Structured Physician Scientist Training Program (PSTP) for Medical Students at the University of Pittsburgh

Head and Neck Cancer Research Training Program Associated with Academic Success for Trainees

This study is to analyze academic success metrics of otolaryngology cancer research laboratory trainees. This is a retrospective analysis of trainee academic outcomes from 2000 to 2020. We examined careers of 99 trainees of the senior author's cancer research laboratory, including undergraduates, medical students, otolaryngology residents/fellows, and NIH T32 postdocs. We compared medical school matriculation rates, otolaryngology and head and neck surgery (OHNS) residency match rates, fellowship match rates, publication rates, and academic positions with publicly available data from the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC), National Resident Matching Program (NRMP), and others. Nine undergraduates achieved a 100% medical school matriculation rate compared with the AAMC rate of 43.4%. Of 22/53 medical students who applied to OHNS residency, students achieved a 100% match rate, compared with the NRMP match rate of 82.1%. Of 33 medical students who completed training, 45.4% became academicians, compared with 44.9% in an NIH R25E program cohort, which is notable. Interestingly, medical student trainees overall had more publications compared with incoming OHNS residents. Our residents achieved a 100% fellowship match rate compared with 79.0% average match rate across OHNS fellowship programs. Twelve of 25 (48%) residents earned advanced degrees (10 MS, 2 PhD), 11 of which were directly related to oncology. This was statistically significant compared to incoming otolaryngology residents via the NRMP data. Sixty percent (3/5) of surgical fellows entered academics. We observed multiple benefits from participation in our research laboratory at all levels of academic cancer training, specifically medical school and otolaryngology residency matriculation and academic faculty placement of former trainees.

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.

Establishment of the Clinician-Scientist Investigator Opportunity Network to Develop Military Medical Research Leaders

INTRODUCTION

The ability of military clinicians to conduct military medical research is often limited because of competing priorities and a lack of research mentorship. The Clinician-Scientist Investigator Opportunity Network (CSION) was developed with the intent of training clinicians how to engage in requirements-driven research within the DoD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three to five academic medical faculties were selected from a pool of applicants each year to participate in a 2-year research fellowship. To be eligible for the CSION program, applicants had to meet the following criteria: (1) Completed residency graduate medical education training, (2) not be currently enrolled as a graduate medical education trainee, and (3) obtained permission from their department leadership to focus 25% of their duty hours on CSION participation to include didactic and research efforts. The remaining 75% of fellows' time was dedicated to clinical duties. Monthly didactics, intensive mentorship, and consistent support were offered to each fellow by the CSION leadership team. Metrics were recorded to include both research and clinical productivity.

RESULTS

Between January 2019 and December 2022, 12 CSION fellows graduated from the program (four in the class of 2020, three in 2021, and five in 2022). From 2019 to 2021, the 12 CSION fellows initiated 204 research protocols, generated 489 publications/presentations, and secured 33 research grants. All graduates of the program remain active in clinical research with multiple graduates currently assigned to research positions.

CONCLUSIONS

The CSION research education program is a 2-year additional duty research fellowship producing clinician-scientists conducting military-relevant medical research and publications and may be considered a low-cost/highly efficient alternative to achieve the reported benefits of the MD-PhD tract. The expansion of the CSION program may improve the quality of military medical research and health care.

Gastroenterology Fellowship and Postdoctoral Training in Omics and Statistics-Part II: How Can It Be Achieved?

Data are being generated, collected, and aggregated in massive quantities at exponentially increasing rates. This "big data," discussed in depth in the first section of this two-part series, is increasingly important to understand the nuances of the gastrointestinal tract and its complex interactions and networks involving a host of other organ systems and microbes. Creating and using these datasets correctly requires comprehensive training; however, current instruction in the integration, analysis, and interpretation of big data appears to lag far behind data acquisition. While opportunities exist for those interested in acquiring the requisite training, these appear to be underutilized, in part due to widespread ignorance of their existence. Here, to address these gaps in knowledge, we highlight existing big data learning opportunities and propose innovative approaches to attain such training. We offer suggestions at both the undergraduate and graduate medical education levels for prospective clinical and basic investigators. Lastly, we categorize training opportunities that can be selected to fit specific needs and timeframes.

The Anesthesiology Physician-Scientist Pipeline: Current Status and Recommendations for Future Growth-An Initiative of the Anesthesia Research Council

The limited number and diversity of resident physicians pursuing careers as physician-scientists in medicine has been a concern for many decades. The Anesthesia Research Council aimed to address the status of the anesthesiology physician-scientist pipeline, benchmarked against other medical specialties, and to develop strategic recommendations to sustain and expand the number and diversity of anesthesiology physician-scientists. The working group analyzed data from the Association of American Medical Colleges and the National Resident Matching Program to characterize the diversity and number of research-oriented residents from US and international allopathic medical schools entering 11 medical specialties from 2009 to 2019. Two surveys were developed to assess the research culture of anesthesiology departments. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding information awarded to anesthesiology physician-scientists and departments was collected from NIH RePORTER and the Blue Ridge Medical Institute. Anesthesiology ranked eighth to tenth place of 11 medical specialties in the percent of "research-oriented" entering residents, defined as those with advanced degrees (Master's or PhDs) in addition to the MD degree or having published at least 3 research publications before residency. Anesthesiology ranked eighth of 11 specialties in the percent of entering residents who were women but ranked fourth of 11 specialties in the percent of entering residents who self-identified as belonging to an underrepresented group in medicine. There has been a 72% increase in both the total NIH funding awarded to anesthesiology departments and the number of NIH K-series mentored training grants (eg, K08 and K23) awarded to anesthesiology physician-scientists between 2015 and 2020. Recommendations for expanding the size and diversity of the anesthesiology physician-scientist pipeline included (1) developing strategies to increase the number of research intensive anesthesiology departments; (2) unifying the diverse programs among academic anesthesiology foundations and societies that seek to grow research in the specialty; (3) adjusting American Society of Anesthesiologists metrics of success to include the number of anesthesiology physician-scientists with extramural research support; (4) increasing the number of mentored awards from Foundation of Anesthesia Education and Research (FAER) and International Anesthesia Research Society (IARS); (5) supporting an organized and concerted effort to inform research-oriented medical students of the diverse research opportunities within anesthesiology should include the specialty being represented at the annual meetings of Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) students and the American Physician Scientist Association, as well as in institutional MSTP programs. The medical specialty of anesthesiology is defined by new discoveries and contributions to perioperative medicine which will only be sustained by a robust pipeline of anesthesiology physician-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.

Curricula, Teaching Methods, and Success Metrics of Clinician-Scientist Training Programs: A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

To describe the literature on clinician-scientist training programs to inform the development of contemporary and inclusive training models.

METHOD

The authors conducted a scoping review, searching the PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Embase databases from database inception until May 25, 2020. Studies presenting primary research that described and evaluated clinician-scientist training programs were identified for data abstraction. On the basis of deductive and inductive methods, information about program characteristics, curricula, teaching strategies, and success metrics was extracted. The extracted variables were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

From the initial 7,544 citations retrieved and 4,974 unique abstracts screened, 81 studies were included. Of the 81 included studies, 65 (80.2%) were published between 2011 and 2020, 54 (66.7%) were conducted in the United States, and 64 (79.0%) described programs that provided broad clinician-scientist training. Few programs provided funding or protected research time or specifically addressed needs of trainees from underrepresented minority groups. Curricula emphasized research methods and knowledge dissemination, whereas patient-oriented research competencies were not described. Most programs incorporated aspects of mentorship and used multiple teaching strategies, such as direct and interactive instruction. Extrinsic metrics of success (e.g., research output) were dominant in reported program outcomes compared with markers of intrinsic success (e.g., career fulfillment).

CONCLUSIONS

Although programs are providing clinician-scientists with practical skills training, opportunities exist for curricular and pedagogic optimization that may better support this complex career path. Training programs for clinician-scientists can address contemporary issues of wellness and equity by reconsidering metrics of program success and evolving the core tenets of their education models to include equity, diversity, and inclusion principles and patient-oriented research competencies.

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.

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.