Addressing the physician-scientist pipeline: strategies to integrate research into clinical training programs

National Pediatrician-Scientist Collaborative Workgroup comment on new ACGME requirements' impact on pediatric physician-scientists

BACKGROUND

The ACGME recently released its recommendation for updates to the program requirements for pediatrics. These updates proposed changes to allocation of resident clinical time and a greater emphasis on individualization. The potential impact of these changes on the training of physician-scientists is discussed.

METHODS

Discussion of the proposed changes was held within the members of the National Pediatrician-Scientist Collaborative Workgroup, a group that represents scientists, trainees, program directors, chairs, and physician-scientist educators at nearly 30 residency programs from across the US with a focus on understanding and developing optimal approaches to physician-scientist training. Consideration was given to the both the personal and institutional impact of the proposal for physician-scientist development.

RESULTS

Both threats and opportunities were identified. Key opportunities include the enhanced individualized training time that could be used to explore research. Threats include re-allocation of clinical training time that may strain institutions financially, expand clinical service requirements for other early career stage individuals, and alter exposure to a broad range of pediatric specialists and sub-specialists that impact career development.

CONCLUSION

The NPSCW encourages consideration of the impact of changing program requirements on physician-scientist development to include ongoing discussion amongst mentors, programs, and trainees to understand and mitigate impact of new program requirements on the development of pediatrician-scientists.

The Pittman Scholar Program for junior faculty recognition at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Heersink School of Medicine

The University of Alabama at Birmingham Heersink School of Medicine established the Pittman Scholars Program in 2015 to elevate scientific impact and to support the recruitment and retention of highly competitive junior faculty. The authors examined the impact of this program on research productivity and on faculty retention. The authors evaluated publications and extramural grant awards and available demographic data for the Pittman Scholars compared to all junior faculty in the Heersink School of Medicine. From 2015 to 2021, the program awarded a diverse group of 41 junior faculty members across the institution. For this cohort, ninety-four new extramural grants were awarded and 146 grant applications were submitted since the inception of the scholar award. Pittman Scholars published a total of 411 papers during the term of the award. The faculty retention rate of the scholars was 95%, comparable to that of all Heersink junior faculty, with 2 recipients being recruited to other institutions. The implementation of the Pittman Scholars Program has been an effective strategy to celebrate scientific impact and acknowledge junior faculty members as outstanding scientists at our institution. The Pittman Scholars award allows junior faculty to use funds for their research program, publications, collaborations, and career advancement. The Pittman Scholars are recognized at local, regional, and national levels for the work they are contributing to academic medicine. The program has served as an important pipeline faculty development program and an avenue for individual recognition for research-intensive faculty.

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.

Medical School Admissions: Focusing on Producing a Physician Workforce That Addresses the Needs of the United States

The aging population, burnout, and earlier retirement of physicians along with the static number of training positions are likely to worsen the current physician shortage. There is an urgent need to transform the process for selecting medical students. In this Invited Commentary, the authors suggest that to build the physician workforce that the United States needs for the future, academic medicine should focus on building capacity in 3 overarching areas. First, medical schools need to develop a more diverse pool of capable applicants that better matches the demographic characteristics of health care trainees with those of the population, and they need to nurture applicants with diverse career aspirations. Second, medical schools should recalibrate their student selection process, aligning criteria for admission with competencies expected of medical school graduates, whether they choose to become practicing clinicians, physician-scientists, members of the public health workforce, or policy makers. Selection criteria that overweight the results of standardized test scores should be replaced by assessments that value and predict academic capacity, adaptive learning skills, curiosity, compassion, empathy, emotional maturity, and superior communication skills. Finally, to improve the equity and effectiveness of the selection processes, medical schools should leverage innovations in data science and generative artificial intelligence platforms. The ability of ChatGPT to pass the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) demonstrates the decreasing importance of memorization in medicine in favor of critical thinking and problem-solving skills. The 2022 change in the USMLE Step 1 to pass/fail plus the exodus of several prominent medical schools from the U.S. News and World Report rankings have exposed limitations of the current selection processes. Newer approaches that use precision education systems to leverage data and technology can help address these limitations.

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.

Early Outcomes of a New NIH Program to Support Research in Residency

The work of physician-investigators has historically led to key discoveries and developments in modern medicine, but recent decades have seen significant declines in the number of U.S. physician-investigators. One of the barriers to physicians participating in research is the lack of mentored research opportunities during clinical training, especially during residency training. In response to this identified barrier and to expand the physician-investigator workforce, the National Institutes of Health initiated the R38 program, known as Stimulating Access to Research in Residency, to support mentored research opportunities for residents. This article reports on the early outcomes of the recipients of the initial round of R38 awards, granted in 2018. Early positive outcomes include increases in the reported likelihood of resident-investigators pursuing physician-investigator careers, greater reported clarity in resident-investigators' research directions, the commitment of additional institutional resources to support the R38-awarded programs, and the approval of resident-investigators as having met training requirements for certification by multiple medical boards.

Fostering student and faculty scholarship in an accelerated three-year medical school

Background: In acknowledgement of the importance of research competency in academic medicine, an extracurricular student research program and faculty development researcher pathway was developed to promote scholarly productivity at New York University (NYU) Long Island School of Medicine (LISOM), a three-year accelerated Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME)-accredited medical school. The aim was to enhance medical students’ and faculty scholarly productivity, by creating new training programs targeting research skills and academic collaboration. Impact was assessed by initial review of the extracurricular student research program and faculty development researcher pathway. Methods: Electronic surveys via Google were sent out to all current (n = 72) students on 9/20/2021 and the faculty identified based on their primary appointment to NYU LISOM in the learning management system on 9/17/2021 to determine participation in research, presentation of research findings, satisfaction with the program, and research opportunities for students.  Student scholarly productivity was tracked using PubMed, restricted to search years 2020 through 2022.  For the faculty development researcher pathway, publications were tracked for each participant before and after completion of the program, with pre- and post-completion dates ranging from 2012 through 2020.  Results: Student survey results (29 responses out of 72) indicated 28% of students were involved in research with institutional faculty and 59% were interested in starting a research project. Most students involved in extracurricular research were satisfied with their experience and eight students have publications with faculty.  For the faculty development researcher pathway, 35% of the participants increased publications after program graduation. Conclusions: Outcomes from the student research program and faculty researcher pathway were positive regarding student research engagement and faculty scholarly productivity, though long-term outcomes are yet to be evaluated. Progress will be tracked as students continue through undergraduate and graduate medical education, and as both students and faculty progress throughout their career.

Training Physician‒Scientists for Careers in Investigative Dermatology

Physician‒scientists have made countless discoveries, and their dwindling numbers are a significant concern. Although dermatology has become an increasingly popular destination for physician‒scientist trainees, the proportion of trainees who pursue scientific research careers after training is among the lowest of all medical specialties. To investigate this problem, we surveyed a national cohort of dermatology educators, physician‒scientist track program directors, and National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases T32 directors for opinions regarding physician‒scientist training in dermatology. On the basis of these findings and to help address the issue, we propose a training practicum and provide a resource for funding opportunities to help guide trainees and institutions interested in supporting investigative dermatologists. We also discuss the important roles of department chairs and institutions in fashioning an environment conducive to physician‒scientist training. The information and recommendations provided in this paper may help to improve the recruitment, training, development, and retention of investigative dermatologists and future leaders in this field.

Impact of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Loan Repayment Program Funding on Retention of the National Institutes of Health Biomedical Workforce

Background: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Loan Repayment Programs (LRPs) were established by Congress in 2000 to help attract and retain highly qualified health professionals in biomedical careers by relieving financial pressure incurred from educational loans obtained during medical school and other advanced-degree clinical training programs. In 2019, the NIH LRP Program increased the maximum repayment from $35,000 per year to $50,000 per year for an individual’s educational debt in return for two years of research performed in an NIH mission-relevant area (https://www.lrp.nih.gov/eligibility-programs). In addition, in 2020, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) increased its participation in the LRP by adding the Health Disparities Research Program to Clinical Research and Pediatric Research Programs.

Objective: Before these substantive changes took effect, we sought to determine the impact of the NHLBI’s participation in the LRP program on retention of scientists in the biomedical research workforce over the past 20 years.

Methods: NHLBI LRP applicant cohorts from 2003 and 2008 were carefully examined with a 10-year follow-up period to measure the impact of applying for and obtaining NIH LRP funding on subsequent K- and R-level application and award rates, publication number, and average relative citation ratio as metrics to assess recruitment and retention of scientists in the biomedical research workforce.

Results: Obtaining the LRP award was strongly associated with increased submission of and success in obtaining K- and RPG-grant funding and publications for both the 2003 and 2008 NHLBI LRP cohorts. An analysis of subgroups in the 2008 LRP cohort without prior F, K, or RPG funding revealed a consistently strong association between obtaining an LRP award and subsequent K- or RPG-award submission and success as well as potential synergy between obtaining an LRP award and participation on a T grant toward subsequent K- or RPG-award success rates.

Conclusion: The LRP award appears to enhance retention in the biomedical research workforce when measured using metrics of grant application and award rates as well as research publications over a 10-year period.

Challenges and satisfaction in Cardiothoracic Surgery Residency Programmes: insights from a Europe-wide survey

OBJECTIVES

The increasing complexity of surgical patients and working time constraints represent challenges for training. In this study, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery Residents' Committee aimed to evaluate satisfaction with current training programmes across Europe.

METHODS

We conducted an online survey between October 2018 and April 2019, completed by a total of 219 participants from 24 countries.

RESULTS

The average respondent was in the fourth or fifth year of training, mostly on a cardiac surgery pathway. Most trainees follow a 5-6-year programme, with a compulsory final certification exam, but no regular skills evaluation. Only a minority are expected to take the examination by the European Board of Cardiothoracic Surgery. Participants work on average 61.0 ± 13.1 h per week, including 27.1 ± 20.2 on-call. In total, only 19.7% confirmed the implementation of the European Working Time Directive, with 42.0% being unaware that European regulations existed. Having designated time for research was reported by 13.0%, despite 47.0% having a postgraduate degree. On average, respondents rated their satisfaction 7.9 out of 10, although 56.2% of participants were not satisfied with their training opportunities. We found an association between trainee satisfaction and regular skills evaluation, first operator experience and protected research time.

CONCLUSIONS

On average, residents are satisfied with their training, despite significant disparities in the quality and structure of cardiothoracic surgery training across Europe. Areas for potential improvement include increasing structured feedback, research time integration and better working hours compliance. The development of European guidelines on training standards may support this.

Current State and Future of Research in Nephrology

The focus of this article is to review the available funding opportunities for the nephrology workforce at all career levels and review the current challenges involved in the career of a physician-scientist. While the scarcity of nephrology fellows for training programs is a continuing challenge, increased funding for the National Institutes of Health is encouraging particularly for early career investigators. In addition to National Institutes of Health funding, other funding sources are also discussed as they provide much needed bridge funding during key transition periods for young careers. Recent initiatives such as the Advancing American Kidney Health, KidneyX, and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases' Kidney Precision Medicine Project offer new research opportunities for bringing much needed innovation to improve lives of people with kidney diseases. The time is now for us to seize the opportunity and ensure that a strong workforce will be able to take advantage of these potential game changers for nephrology.