ContextDespite increasing numbers of publications, science often fails to significantly improve patient care. Clinician‐scientists, professionals who combine care and research activities, play an important role in helping to solve this problem. However, despite the ascribed advantages of connecting scientific knowledge and inquiry with health care, clinician‐scientists are scarce, especially amongst non‐physicians. The education of clinician‐scientists can be complex because they must form professional identities at the intersection of care and research. The successful education of clinician‐scientists requires insight into how these professionals view their professional identity and how they combine distinct practices.ObjectivesThis study sought to investigate how recently trained nurse‐ and physiotherapist‐scientists perceive their professional identities and experience the crossing of boundaries between care and research.MethodsSemi‐structured interviews were conducted with 14 nurse‐ and physiotherapist‐scientists at 1 year after they had completed MSc research training. Interviews were thematically analysed using insights from the theoretical frameworks of dialogical self theory and boundary crossing.ResultsAfter research training, the initial professional identity, of clinician, remained important for novice clinician‐scientists, whereas the scientist identity was experienced as additional and complementary. A meta‐identity as broker, referred to as a ‘bridge builder’, seemed to mediate competing demands or tensions between the two positions. Obtaining and maintaining a dual work position were experienced as logistically demanding; nevertheless, it was considered beneficial for crossing the boundaries between care and research because it led to reflection on the health profession, knowledge integration, inquiry and innovation in care, improved data collection, and research with a focus on clinical applicability.ConclusionsNovice clinician‐scientists experience dual professional identities as care providers and scientists. The meta‐position of being a broker who connects care and research is seen as core to the unique clinician‐scientist identity. To develop this role, identity formation and boundary‐crossing competencies merit explicit attention within clinician‐scientist programmes.

Dr. Francis Collins, NIH Director, convened and charged the Physician-Scientist Workforce Working Group (PSW-WG) with analyzing the current composition and size of the physician-scientist biomedical workforce and making recommendations for actions that NIH should take to help sustain and strengthen a robust and diverse PSW. The need for the PSW-WG emerged from the recommendations of the Biomedical Research Workforce Working Group for strengthening the biomedical workforce. Its June 2012 report concluded that the training and career paths of physician-scientists were different than that of the non-clinician PhD workforce and that further study of this important segment of the workforce was needed.Warning bells about the health of the physician-science workforce were sounded as early as 1979 when future NIH Director James Wyngaarden observed that the physician-scientist with a medical degree was becoming "an endangered species." He had observed that MD applicants for NIH project grants represented a progressively smaller fraction of all applicants than previously, while the corresponding fraction of PhD applicants had increased dramatically. In 1996, NIH established a committee headed by David G. Nathan to make recommendations about the perceived shortfall of clinician scientists. The Nathan Committee recommended creating new career development grants for patient-oriented research and loan repayment programs to help young physician-scientists pursue research careers despite an increasing load of educational debt.In spring 2013, the PSW-WG met and established subcommittees to discuss issues confronting the physician-scientist workforce. To inform its deliberations, the PSW-WG directed quantitative analyses of NIH IMPACII and other relevant databases to answer key questions, and considered the findings from qualitative research based on focus groups and interviews with students, research deans, and early career investigators.The PSW-WG defined physician-scientists as scientists with professional degrees who have training in clinical care and who are engaged in independent biomedical research. The PSW thus includes individuals with an MD, DO, DDS/DMD, DVM/VMD, or nurses with research doctoral degrees who devote the majority of their time to biomedical research. The PSW-WG recognizes that the primary goal of professional clinical education is the training of a skilled clinical workforce in the respective areas of practice, and that the portion of such professionals devoted to research will be small. However, findings which lead to advances in practice are driven largely by the work of investigators with a variety of degrees, of whom those with clinical training contribute essential knowledge and skills.