A Physician Scientist Pathway in Family Medicine Residency Training Programs

Doubeni, Chyke A.; Davis, Ardis; Benson, Janice L.; Ewigman, Bernard

doi:10.1370/afm.2160

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The need for research training in family medicine has been well described in the literature, and numerous initiatives and programs have been developed to address major gaps that still exist. [34][35][36][37][38] Our results are consistent with Bland's findings that there is a "critical mass" of research faculty and research FTE Utilizing a wide range of research laboratory types-both primary and secondary-was also associated with departments with high research capacity in this study. Notably, secondary sources of data were less commonly used in lower-capacity departments despite being more readily available and often free or low cost.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

The Current State of Research Capacity in US Family Medicine Departments

Weidner

Peterson

Mainous

et al. 2019

Fam Med

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives: Capacity for conducting family medicine research has grown significantly since the specialty was founded. Many calls to increase this capacity have been published, but there has been no consistent, systematic, and longitudinal assessment. This survey was designed to gather baseline data with an easily replicable set of measures associated with research productivity that can guide and monitor the impact of efforts to build research capacity in US departments of family medicine (DFMs). Methods: We surveyed family medicine department chairs regarding departmental research capacity using well-established empirical measures of capacity (trained research faculty, infrastructure, research leadership, and funding) and a self-assessment. We used bivariate analyses to assess correlation between the empirical measures and the self-assessed stage of research capacity. Results: Self-assessed capacity was significantly associated with every empirical measure. High-capacity departments have more research-trained faculty, more faculty effort, utilize more research “laboratories,” have more faculty serving on federal peer-review panels, more faculty as principal investigators, devote more internal funding to research, and garner larger amounts of funding from more external funding sources than moderate or minimal-capacity departments. Conclusions: US DFMs have made great strides over the past half century in building research capacity. However, much more capacity in family medicine and primary care research is needed to produce new knowledge necessary to improve the health and health care of the nation. Periodic measurement using the simple, replicable, and valid minimum measures of this study provides an opportunity to establish longitudinal tracking of change in research capacity in US DFMs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

The Current State of Research Capacity in US Family Medicine Departments

Weidner

Peterson

Mainous

et al. 2019

Fam Med

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, among U.S. seniors who matched to radiation oncology, 21% had PhD degrees, 24 13 Recently, the American Board of Dermatology approved a research track, 26 and the American Board of Family Medicine approved a pilot physician-scientist pathway. 27 A recent study of ABIM research pathway outcomes reported that 91% (352/385) of respondents to a 2012 survey to pathway completers through 2007 were engaged in research at least to some degree, and 65% (240/371) held a PhD (or other doctoral-level equivalent) degree before pathway entry, which was associated with higher research engagement at follow-up. 11 We did not have ABMS-member boards' research pathway participation information to include in our study, but our findings and those of others 11 support a role for GME models to promote the retention of physician-scientists in the research workforce in a broad range of specialties.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

MD–PhD Program Graduates’ Engagement in Research: Results of a National Study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To determine if specialty, among other professional development and demographic variables, predicted MD–PhD program graduates’ research engagement. Method The authors merged the 2015 Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) National MD–PhD Program Outcomes Survey database with selected data from the AAMC Student Records System, Graduation Questionnaire, and Graduate Medical Education (GME) Track Resident Survey. At the person level, they tested variables of interest for independent associations with MD–PhD graduates’ research engagement using chi-square, Pearson correlations, and analysis of variance tests and logistic and linear regressions. Results Of 3,297 MD–PhD graduates from 1991–2010 who were no longer in GME training in 2015, 78.0% (2,572/3,297) reported research engagement. In models controlling for several variables, a neurology (vs internal medicine; adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 2.48; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.60–3.86) or pathology (vs internal medicine; AOR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.33–2.68) specialty, full-time faculty/research scientist career intention at graduation (vs all other career intentions; AOR: 3.04; 95% CI: 2.16–4.28), and ≥ 1 year of GME research (vs no GME research year[s]; AOR: 2.45; 95% CI: 1.96–3.06) predicted a greater likelihood of research engagement. Among graduates engaged in research, the mean percentage of research time was 49.9% (standard deviation 30.1%). Participation in ≥ 1 year of GME research (beta [β] coefficient: 7.99, P < .001) predicted a higher percentage of research time, whereas a radiation oncology (β: −28.70), diagnostic radiology (β: −32.92), or surgery (β: −29.61) specialty, among others, predicted a lower percentage of research time (each P < .001 vs internal medicine). Conclusions Most MD–PhD graduates were engaged in research, but the extent of their engagement varied substantially among specialties. Across specialties, participation in research during GME may be one factor that sustains MD–PhD graduates’ subsequent early- to midcareer research engagement.

show abstract

“…Despite the growth in funding in the past 5 years noted above, the 10+ years before that were nearly stagnant, and we are seeing some other concerning trends. Many departments with research fellowships have reported challenges in finding interested family physician candidates, and pilot programs like the physician scientist pathway 12 have struggled to take off.…”

Section: Why Now?mentioning

confidence: 99%