BackgroundInterest in nephrology careers among internal medicine residents in the United States is declining. Our objective was to assess the impact of the presence of a nephrology fellowship training program on perceptions and career interest in nephrology among internal medicine residents. A secondary objective was to identify commonly endorsed negative perceptions of nephrology among internal medicine residents.MethodsThis was a repeated cross-sectional survey of internal medicine residents before (Group 1) and 3 years after (Group 2) the establishment of nephrology fellowship programs at two institutions. The primary outcome was the percentage of residents indicating nephrology as a career interest in Group 1 vs. Group 2. Secondary outcomes included the frequency that residents agreed with negative statements about nephrology.Results131 (80.9%) of 162 residents completed the survey. 19 (14.8%) residents indicated interest in a nephrology career, with 8 (6.3%) indicating nephrology as their first choice. There was no difference in career interest in nephrology between residents who were exposed to nephrology fellows during residency training (Group 2) and residents who were not (Group 1). The most commonly endorsed negative perceptions of nephrology were: nephrology fellows have long hours/burdensome call (36 [28.1%] of residents agreed or strongly agreed), practicing nephrologists must take frequent/difficult call (35 [27.6%] agreed or strongly agreed), and nephrology has few opportunities for procedures (35 [27.3%] agreed or strongly agreed). More residents in Group 2 agreed that nephrology is poorly paid (8.9% in Group 1 vs. 20.8% in Group 2, P = 0.04), whereas more residents in Group 1 agreed that nephrologists must take frequent/difficult call (40.0% in Group 1 vs. 18.1% in Group 2, P = 0.02).ConclusionsThe initiation of a nephrology fellowship program was not associated with an increase in internal medicine residents’ interest in nephrology careers. Residents endorsed several negative perceptions of nephrology, which may affect career choice.

No abstract

IntroductionThis study investigated factors that influence emergency medicine (EM) patients’ decisions to participate in clinical trials and whether the impact of these factors differs from those of other medical specialties.MethodsA survey was distributed in EM, family medicine (FM), infectious disease (ID), and obstetrics/gynecology (OB/GYN) outpatient waiting areas. Eligibility criteria included those who were 18 years of age or older, active patients on the day of the survey, and able to complete the survey without assistance. We used the Kruskal-Wallis test and ordinal logistic regression analyses to identify differences in participants’ responses.ResultsA total of 2,893 eligible subjects were approached, and we included 1,841 surveys in the final analysis. Statistically significant differences (p≤0.009) were found for eight of the ten motivating factors between EM and one or more of the other specialties. Regardless of a patient’s gender, race, and education, the relationship with their doctor was more motivating to patients seen in other specialties than to EM patients (FM [odds ratio {OR}:1.752, 95% confidence interval {CI}{1.285–2.389}], ID [OR:3.281, 95% CI{2.293–4.695}], and OB/GYN [OR:2.408, 95% CI{1.741–3.330}]). EM’s rankings of “how well the research was explained” and whether “the knowledge learned would benefit others” as their top two motivating factors were similar across other specialties. All nine barriers showed statistically significant differences (p≤0.008) between EM and one or more other specialties. Participants from all specialties indicated “risk of unknown side effects” as their strongest barrier. Regardless of the patients’ race, “time commitment” was considered to be more of a barrier to other specialties when compared to EM (FM [OR:1.613, 95% CI{1.218–2.136}], ID [OR:1.340, 95% CI{1.006–1.784}], or OB/GYN [OR:1.901, 95% CI{1.431–2.526}]). Among the six resources assessed that help patients decide whether to participate in a clinical trial, only one scored statistically significantly different for EM (p<0.001). EM patients ranked “having all material provided in my own language” as the most helpful resource.ConclusionThere are significant differences between EM patients and those of other specialties in the factors that influence their participation in clinical trials. Providing material in the patient’s own language, explaining the study well, and elucidating how their participation might benefit others in the future may help to improve enrollment in EM-based clinical trials.

Racial differences exist not only between Caucasians and Minorities for the factors associated with their clinical trial participation, but also among different minority races themselves. To promote diversity in research, recruitment strategies for each individual race should be customized based on what matters to the target population.