Strategies for Achieving Gender Equity and Work-Life Integration in Physician-Scientist Training

Making the match and breaking it: values, perceptions, and obstacles of trainees applying into physician-scientist training programs

BACKGROUND

Replenishing the physician-scientist workforce constitutes a central mission of medical education, but the loss of qualified trainees to non-academic positions remains an ongoing threat. Among the barriers facing physician-scientists today is the game-like model of U.S. medical residency matching through the National Research Matching Program (NRPM), which applies several assumptions regarding the comparability of applicant qualifications, cohort size, and the institutional breadth of applicants' training needs.

METHODS

The current report therefore summarizes the survey-based views and experiences of physician-scientist trainees obtained following the 2021-2022 application cycle for research-oriented residency programs, or physician-scientist training programs (PSTPs). From among this small cohort of applicants, we obtained survey-based feedback of 27 PSTP applicants across 17 U.S. medical universities, among whom 85% (23/27) matched into a PSTP.

RESULTS

Among these PSTP applicants, 25/27 (93%) recognized "scientific community" as the most important feature of a postgraduate training program, with applicants identifying as female placing a higher value on the program's infrastructure of personal and/or family support. Most (18/27) respondents found "waiting for interviews" as the most stressful phase of their application cycle, and roughly half of all respondents encountered at least one NRMP policy violation through post-interview communication. Specifically, 93% (25/27) respondents were contacted by at least one PSTP following interviews, and 1/3 of them admitted to feeling pressured into sharing their ranking preferences.

CONCLUSION

We highlight many previously unrecognized priorities among applicants to PSTPs, which include fostering community among its trainees and reinforcing structured mentoring. We uncover an inconsistency among PSTPs regarding the post-interview process, which represents an opportunity to better support applicants seeking to gauge programs according to their clinical, scientific, and academic interests as physician-scientists, while still adhering to NRMP policies.

Earlier First Publication Is Associated with More Future Publication

Participation in clinical research has served clinicians to develop academic careers, as well as to deepen clinical insights, implement evidence-based medicine practices, and even inspire new clinical questions. Early engagement in academic pursuits may better prepare clinicians to maintain long-term research productivity, rather than starting later in their careers.We included medical doctors who graduated from a medical university and retrospectively followed them for 10 years after graduation. The impact of at least one publication within the first 5 years on the achievement of ≥ 5 publications within 10 years was evaluated.A total of 79 medical doctors, including 60 (76%) men, were included. During the first 5 years, 21 (27%) published at least one paper. Overall, 25 (32%) achieved the primary outcome. At least one publication during the first 5 years was an independent predictor of the primary outcome (odds ratio 30.4, 95% confidence interval 2.68-251, P = 0.002). Medical doctors with at least one publication within the first 5 years had significantly higher cumulative 10-year publications compared to no publications within the first 5 years (9 [5, 13] versus 0 [0, 3], P < 0.001).In this retrospective study, we demonstrated that an early involvement in research defined by academic output was associated with higher odds of multiple publications later in a career. Prospective studies to validate our findings by involving young medical doctors in academic pursuits are needed to understand the longitudinal effects of early career academic productivity.

A phenomenological exploration of the impact of COVID-19 on the medical education community

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented stress to the medical education community, potentially worsening problems like burnout and work-life imbalance that its members have long been grappling with. However, the collective struggle sparked by the pandemic could generate the critical reflection necessary for transforming professional values and practices for the better. In this hermeneutic phenomenological study, we explore how the community is adapting-and even reconceptualising-their personal and professional roles amidst the COVID-19 crisis.

METHOD

Between April and October 2020, we conducted 27 (17F, 10M) semi-structured interviews with medical trainees (8), physicians (8), graduate students (3) and PhD scientists (8) working in medical education in Canada, the United States and Switzerland. Data analysis involved a variety of strategies, including coding for van Manen's four lifeworld existentials, reflexive writing and multiple team meetings.

RESULTS

Participants experienced grief related to the loss of long-established personal and professional structures and boundaries, relationships and plans for the future. However, experiences of grief were often conflicting. Some participants also experienced moments of relief, perceiving some losses as metaphorical permissions slips to slow down and focus on their well-being. In turn, many reflected on the opportunity they were being offered to re-imagine the nature of their work.

DISCUSSION

Participants' experiences with grief, relief and opportunity resonate with Ratcliffe's account of grief as a process of relearning the world after a significant loss. The dismantling of prior life structures and possibilities incited in participants critical reflection on the nature of the medical education community's professional practices. Participants demonstrated their desire for more flexibility and autonomy in the workplace and a re-adjustment of the values and expectations inherent to their profession. On both individual and systems levels, the community must ensure that long-standing calls for wellness and work-life integration are realised-and persist-after the pandemic is over.

Revealing hidden experiences: Gendered microaggressions and surgical faculty burnout

BACKGROUND

Studies report higher burnout in women faculty surgeons compared to men. However, few studies have examined underlying mechanisms for these gendered differences. Gendered differences in microaggression experiences may explain part of the relationship between gender and burnout. We aimed to investigate the relationship between gender, gendered microaggressions, and burnout and test the hypothesis that microaggressions contribute to the relationship between gender and burnout.

METHODS

In this 2021 study, a survey was distributed to surgical faculty at 7 institutions. Variables included gender identity, race, average hours worked recently, the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory, and a modified Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale to assess gendered microaggressions. To assess the relationship between surgical faculty gender and burnout, and if this relationship could be explained by microaggressions, a mediation model was tested.

RESULTS

A total of 109 participants (40% female) completed the survey and were included in analysis. The hypothesized indirect effect of gender on burnout (M = 2.70/5, SD = 0.81), through gender-based microaggressions (M = 1.7/5, SD = 1.9), was significant, B = -0.25, SE B = 0.09, confidence interval (-0.44 to -0.09): women surgeons reported higher levels of gendered microaggressions, which predicted higher levels of burnout. The overall model was significant (R² = .16, F[6,102] = 3.33, P < .01). Race, specialty, hours worked, and years of experience were all not significant in the model.

CONCLUSION

Gendered microaggressions mediate the relationship between gender and burnout, providing a potential mechanism for the higher rates of burnout in women surgeons evident in prior research. These multi-institutional data provide a focus for targeted initiatives that could decrease both burnout rates and the impact of gender bias on surgical faculty.

Predoctoral MD-PhD grants as indicators of future NIH funding success

MD-PhD trainees constitute an important source of physician-scientists. Persistence on this challenging path is facilitated by success in garnering independent (R grant) support from the NIH. Published research tracks academic appointments and global R01 success for MD-PhD trainees but has not included information on future funding success of individual MD-PhD predoctoral grant holders. Here, we used data from the NIH RePORTER database to identify and track the funding trajectory of physician-scientists who received predoctoral grant support through the F30 mechanism, which is specific for dual-degree candidates. Male and female F30 awardees did not differ in their success in garnering K (postdoctoral training) grants, but, among F30 grant awardees, men were 2.6 times more likely than women to receive R funding. These results underscore the need for analysis of factors that contribute to the disproportionate loss of NIH-supported female physician-scientists between the predoctoral F30 and the independent R grant-supported stages.

Eliminating Explicit and Implicit Biases in Health Care: Evidence and Research Needs

Health care providers hold negative explicit and implicit biases against marginalized groups of people such as racial and ethnic minoritized populations. These biases permeate the health care system and affect patients via patient–clinician communication, clinical decision making, and institutionalized practices. Addressing bias remains a fundamental professional responsibility of those accountable for the health and wellness of our populations. Current interventions include instruction on the existence and harmful role of bias in perpetuating health disparities, as well as skills training for the management of bias. These interventions can raise awareness of provider bias and engage health care providers in establishing egalitarian goals for care delivery, but these changes are not sustained, and the interventions have not demonstrated change in behavior in the clinical or learning environment. Unfortunately, the efficacy of these interventions may be hampered by health care providers’ work and learning environments, which are rife with discriminatory practices that sustain the very biases US health care professions are seeking to diminish. We offer a conceptual model demonstrating that provider-level implicit bias interventions should be accompanied by interventions that systemically change structures inside and outside the health care system if the country is to succeed in influencing biases and reducing health inequities.