Multimethods study comparing the experiences of medical clinical academics with nurses, midwives and allied health professionals pursuing a clinical academic career

Abstract

ObjectivesThis study aimed to compare experiences of medical clinical academics (MCAs) with those of nurses, midwives and allied health professionals (NMAHPs) pursuing a clinical academic career.DesignA multimethods approach was used to elicit qualitative data. Both sets of participants completed similar online surveys followed by in-depth interviews to explore emerging themes.SettingThe research was conducted in the East Midlands of England, encompassing two Higher Education Institutions and four National Health Service Trusts.ParticipantsSurveys were completed by 67 NMAHPs and 73 MCA trainees. Sixteen participants from each group were interviewed following a similar interview schedule.ResultsThe survey data revealed notable differences in demographics of the two study populations, reflecting their different career structures. MCAs were younger and they all combined clinical and academic training, lengthening the time before qualification. In contrast, most NMAHPs had been in their clinical post for some years before embarking on a clinical academic pathway. Both routes had financial and personal repercussions and participants faced similar obstacles. However, there was also evidence of wide-ranging benefits from combining clinical and academic roles.ConclusionsVariations in experiences between the two study populations highlight a need for a clear academic pathway for all health professionals, as well as sufficient opportunities post-PhD to enable clinical academics to fully use their dual skills.

A qualitative study exploring experiences and challenges of combining clinical academic training with family life

“…The same set of questions was used for both sets of participants, except for an additional question in the MCA study relating to combining clinical academic careers and family life. This was prompted by the rich unsolicited data on the topic that arose in the NMAHP’s study which was felt worthy of pursuit when comparing the two groups [ 3 ]. The interviews which lasted between 30 and 60 min were digitally recorded with permission, and professionally transcribed.…”

“…However, there are differences in the clinical academic training offered to doctors and dentists (medical clinical academics, henceforth MCAs) and the academic training provision for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals (henceforth NMAHPs). These differences are discussed fully elsewhere [ 3 ] but briefly, MCAs are able to begin clinical academic training from medical school onwards. The National Institute for Health Research funds an integrative clinical academic pathway [ 4 ], meaning that MCAs usually undertake academic training in parallel to their medical training.…”

“…In contrast, NMAHPs can only begin clinical academic training once they are clinically qualified. Furthermore, unlike their medical colleagues, there is no integrated pathway for NMAHPs which means that they often have to reduce their clinical hours or leave their clinical post, in order to pursue a clinical academic career [ 3 ].…”

“…Challenges associated with clinical academic training include balancing clinical and academic responsibilities [ 5 ], negotiating competing pressures from universities and NHS Trusts, financial concerns, and competition for funding and jobs [ 3 ]. Another area of concern for clinical academic trainees is achieving an acceptable work/life balance [ 6 ].…”

“…The data discussed in this paper come from a larger study which was the first to compare the benefits and challenges associated with the clinical academic pathway as experienced by NMAHPs and MCAs [ 3 ]. Although it was not the main focus of the larger study the topic of family considerations and caring responsibilities was identified as a major theme within participants’ reflections on their career decision-making.…”