The Physician-Investigator Workforce: Looking Ahead

Exploring the unique value of clinician scientist roles to the health services in which they are employed: a scoping review

Objective This scoping review explored the unique value or impacts of clinician scientists (CSs) to the health services in which they work and metrics used to identify and measure this value. Methods Five databases, grey literature, and the internet were searched in April 2024 to identify articles that described and measured the value or impact of CSs within clinical health services. CSs were defined as having dual clinical and research qualifications and work duties. Articles were screened at title, abstract, and full text level against inclusion and exclusion criteria, before extracting data and analysing the included articles. Results The search identified 5368 articles, with six eligible for inclusion. Articles were qualitative in nature (structured interviews or multiple case study reports) and had relatively few participants. The reported value or impacts included educating colleagues on research skills and processes, promoting evidence-based practice, fostering inter-institutional collaboration, and conducting clinically relevant research. No articles recommended a detailed suite of metrics as to how this value or impact could be measured. Conclusions There is limited literature describing the unique value or impact of CSs to the health services in which they work. While some articles described aspects of CS value, no articles provided metrics for how specific CS value could be measured.

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.

Adapting a Medical School Cancer Research Education Program to the Virtual Environment: a Mixed-Methods Study

With cancer incidence increasing worldwide, physicians with cancer research training are needed. The Scholars in Oncology-Associated Research (SOAR) cancer research education program was developed to train medical students in cancer research while exposing them to the breadth of clinical oncology. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, SOAR transitioned from in-person in 2019 to virtual in 2020 and hybrid in 2021. This study investigates positive and negative aspects of the varying educational formats. A mixed-methods approach was used to evaluate the educational formats. Pre- and post-surveys were collected from participants to assess their understanding of cancer as a clinical and research discipline. Structured interviews were conducted across all three cohorts, and thematic analysis was used to generate themes. A total of 37 students participated in SOAR and completed surveys (2019 n = 11, 2020 n = 14, and 2021 n = 12), and 18 interviews were conducted. Understanding of oncology as a clinical (p < 0.01 for all) and research discipline (p < 0.01 for all) improved within all three cohorts. There was no difference between each cohort's improvement in research understanding (p = 0.6). There was no difference between each cohort's understanding of oncology-related disciplines as both clinical and research disciplines (p > 0.1 for all). Thematic analysis demonstrated that hybrid and in-person formats were favored over a completely virtual one. Our findings demonstrate that a medical student cancer research education program is effective using in-person or hybrid formats for research education, although virtual experiences may be suboptimal to learning about clinical oncology.

Launching IDeA state early career clinician-scientists with mentored just-in-time grant-writing support

Institutional Development Award (IDeA) programs build research infrastructure in regions with historically low access to NIH funds. The Mentored Research Development Award (MRDA), a professional development program embedded in our IDeA-funded center, provides junior investigators with mentorship and effort offset to write a grant. We evaluated outcomes from the first eight years (2013-2021; N = 55) using administrative records, publicly available data, and a self-report survey (n = 46, 84% response rate). Fifteen MRDA recipients (27%) went on to receive NIH funding. Providing just-in-time grant-writing support may launch early career clinician-scientists in an IDeA state context.

Are researchers in academic medicine flourishing? A survey of midcareer Ph.D. and physician investigators

Introduction

Midcareer research faculty are a vital part of the advancement of science in U.S. medical schools, but there are troubling trends in recruitment, retention, and burnout rates.

Methods

The primary sampling frame for this online survey was recipients of a single R01 or equivalent and/or K-award from 2013 to 2019. Inclusion criteria were 3-14 years at a U.S. medical school and rank of associate professor or two or more years as assistant professor. Forty physician investigators and Ph.D. scientists volunteered for a faculty development program, and 106 were propensity-matched controls. Survey items covered self-efficacy in career, research, work-life; vitality/burnout; relationships, inclusion, trust; diversity; and intention to leave academic medicine.

Results

The majority (52%) reported receiving poor mentoring; 40% experienced high burnout and 41% low vitality, which, in turn, predicted leaving intention (P < 0.0005). Women were more likely to report high burnout (P = 0.01) and low self-efficacy managing work and personal life (P = 0.01) and to be seriously considering leaving academic medicine than men (P = 0.003). Mentoring quality (P < 0.0005) and poor relationships, inclusion, and trust (P < 0.0005) predicted leaving intention. Non-underrepresented men were very likely to report low identity self-awareness (65%) and valuing differences (24%) versus underrepresented men (25% and 0%; P < 0.0005). Ph.D.s had lower career advancement self-efficacy than M.D.s (P < .0005).

Conclusions

Midcareer Ph.D. and physician investigators faced significant career challenges. Experiences diverged by underrepresentation, gender, and degree. Poor quality mentoring was an issue for most. Effective mentoring could address the concerns of this vital component of the biomedical workforce.

An exploration of the professional identity of clinical academics using repertory grid technique

BACKGROUND

Clinicians who divide their time between clinical work and research have contributed to some of the most fundamental breakthroughs in medicine in recent history, yet their role is not always well-understood or valued. Understanding the factors which contribute to career success for clinical academics is critical for supporting this workforce. Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) provides a conceptual framework for career success, incorporating personal and environmental factors.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to explore clinical academics' construal of successful clinical academic practice and to contribute to a holistic view of the professional identity of the clinical academic.

METHODOLOGY

Using a constructivist technique, repertory grid, the authors interviewed ten clinical academics at different career stages in one-to-one structured interviews conducted virtually between November 2020 and April 2021. Data from the interviews were analysed qualitatively and quantitatively. Common themes were identified, analysed, and ranked according to importance with respect to successful clinical academic practice. Using SCCT as a framework, constructs were categorised as personal factors, organisational factors, competencies and person-environment fit. A differential analysis between established/trainee and female/male participants was carried out.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-three constructs were elicited and categorised into 20 themes (constructs). There was consensus among participants that 6 were of high importance with respect to successful clinical academic practice, 8 of intermediate and 4 of low importance, with no consensus on 2 constructs. Personal factors of high importance include innovation and integrity. Competencies including research and teaching skills are highly important, and ability to collaborate is also considered central to successful clinical academic practice. Female participants expressed greater concerns about the impact of familial responsibilities on career progression.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the importance of interactions between the person and environment, and characterises the important attributes of successful clinical academics including personal factors such as integrity and innovation.

Clinician-Scientist Faculty Mentoring Program (FAME) - A New Inclusive Training Model at Penn State Increases Scholarly Productivity and Extramural Grant Funding

PURPOSE

Clinician-scientists have a high attrition rate at the junior-faculty level, before they gain independent funding. We identified the lack of skill set, clinician-scientist community and collaboration between clinician-scientists and clinicians with predominantly clinical duties, as key problems in our medium-size college of medicine.

METHODS

We designed a novel two-year educational program, the Clinician-scientist Faculty Mentoring program (FAME) specifically to target junior clinician-scientists. The program enrollment included both lab-based, "traditional" and "non-traditional" clinician-scientists, with predominantly clinical duties and limited time for research. The curriculum included the novel educational tools: Emerging technology seminars and mentored work-in-progress research seminars, integrated with mock grant review.

RESULTS

The first class enrolled 17 clinician-scientists with diverse clinical subspecialty, previous research training, and protected research time. After two years in the program, the self-assessment of FAME scholars demonstrated strong improvement in grantsmanship skills, career development, emerging technologies, and the sense of community and collaboration. Compared to the period before initiating FAME, scholars increased annual scholarly output by 65% and new extramural funding by >20-fold ($0.189 vs $4.0 million) following completion of FAME. The "traditional" clinician-scientists, who had >50% research time, increased new extramural funding by ~25-fold ($0.134 vs $3.336 million), whereas "non-traditional" clinician-scientists who had ≤50% research time increased new extramural funding by >13-fold.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that a training program tailored specifically to clinician-scientists leads to increased scholarly productivity and grant funding regardless of research background. Implementing this type of training program nationally, with inclusion of clinician-scientists with various amounts of protected time for research, will help both "traditional" and "non-traditional" clinician-scientists to obtain a substantial independent extramural funding, fulfill their scholarly potential, and enhance their sense of community. Our model would be particularly useful for small-to-medium sized academic institutions, who have a limited clinician-scientist workforce facing competing health care system needs.

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.

Increasing Clinician-Scientist Workforce Diversity through the National Institute of General Medical Sciences’ Medical Scientist Training Program

The National Institute of General Medical Sciences Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) has been successful in producing clinician-scientists, with a majority of graduates pursuing research-related careers. However, there are a number of areas of continuing concern for the program. In particular, women and individuals from certain racial and ethnic backgrounds remain persistently underrepresented in MSTPs relative to the average college-aged U.S. population and to students receiving life sciences bachelor’s degrees. The authors, who include leaders of NIGMS, identify a number of challenges and opportunities for enhancing diversity, equity and inclusion in the MSTPs and suggest strategies for addressing them.

Tips to Support the Recruitment, Retention, and Progression of Clinical Academics

Training to become a clinical academic is a long and arduous process with many obstacles. Many potential candidates fall by the wayside both during and following completion of the combined clinical and academic training pathway with negative implications for clinical and translational research and teaching. Findings from a recent national multi-funder study, alongside clinical academic experiences and current literature, have led to the creation of this 12-tip paper. The tips are targeted at supervisors and employers of clinical academics, aiming to improve recruitment, experiences, retention, and progression through the career path.

Midcareer Medical School Research Faculty Perspectives on Vitality and Professionalism During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Importance

As medical faculty have central roles during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to study the pandemic's association with the vitality and careers of medical school faculty.

Objective

To examine how the COVID-19 pandemic affected midcareer research faculty in academic medicine.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This qualitative study included medical school faculty who participated in the C-Change Mentoring and Leadership Institute. All US medical school faculty recipients of recent National Institutes of Health (NIH) RO1, RO1-equivalent, and K awards were invited to apply to the institute. The 99 applicants who met inclusion criteria were stratified by degree (MD or MD/PhD vs PhD), gender, and race/ethnicity. Enrollment was offered to applicants randomly selected for 40 spots, demographically balanced by sex, underrepresented in medicine minority (URMM) status, and degree. In April 2020, an inquiry was emailed to faculty enrolled in the institute requesting responses to questions about meaning in work, career choice, and values. A qualitative analysis of narrative data responses, using grounded theory, was undertaken to determine key themes. This study is part of a NIH-funded randomized trial to test the efficacy of a group peer mentoring course for midcareer faculty and study the course's mechanisms of action.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Key themes in data.

Results

Of 40 enrolled participants, 39 responded to the inquiry, for a response rate of 97%. The analytic sample included 39 faculty members; 19 (47%) were women, 20 (53%) identified as URMM, and 20 (53%) had an MD or MD with PhD vs 19 (47%) with PhD degrees. Key themes in the data that emerged describing faculty lived experience of the pandemic included increased meaningfulness of work; professionalism and moral responsibility; enhanced relationships with colleagues; reassertion of career choice; disrupted research; impact on clinical work; attention to health disparities, social justice and advocacy; increased family responsibilities; psychological stress; and focus on leadership.

Conclusions and Relevance

During the pandemic, diverse PhD and physician investigators reported increased meaningfulness in work and professionalism and enhanced relationships, all intrinsic motivators associated with vitality. Working during the pandemic appears to have produced intrinsic rewards positively associated with vitality, in addition to adverse mental health effects. These findings have implications for combatting burnout and retaining investigators in the future.