Go to The Journal of Clinical Investigation
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • All ...
  • Videos
  • Collections
    • Resource and Technical Advances
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Reviews
    • Editorials
    • Perspectives
    • Top read articles
  • JCI This Month
    • Current issue
    • Past issues

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • In-Press Preview
  • Editorials
  • Viewpoint
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
The national MD-PhD program outcomes study: Outcomes variation by sex, race, and ethnicity
Myles H. Akabas, Lawrence F. Brass
Myles H. Akabas, Lawrence F. Brass
Published October 3, 2019
Citation Information: JCI Insight. 2019;4(19):e133010. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.133010.
View: Text | PDF
Perspective

The national MD-PhD program outcomes study: Outcomes variation by sex, race, and ethnicity

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

In 2015, a nation-wide effort was launched to track the careers of over 10,000 MD-PhD program graduates. Data were obtained by surveys sent to alumni, inquiries sent to program directors, and searches in American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) databases. Here, we present an analysis of the data, focusing on the impact of sex, race, and ethnicity on career outcomes. The results show that diversity among trainees has increased since the earliest MD-PhD programs, although it still lags considerably behind the US population. Training duration, which includes time to graduation as well as time to first independent position, was similar for men and women and for minority and nonminority alumni, as were most choices of medical specialties. Regardless of minority status and sex, most survey responders reported that they are working in academia, research institutes, federal agencies, or industry. These similarities were, however, accompanied by several noteworthy differences: (a) Based on AAMC Faculty Roster data rather than survey responses, women were less likely than men to have had a full-time faculty appointment, (b) minorities who graduated after 1985 had a longer average time to degree than nonminorities, (c) fewer women and minorities have NIH grants, (d) fewer women reported success in moving from a mentored to an independent NIH award, and (e) women in the most recent graduation cohort reported spending less time on research than men. Collectively, these results suggest that additional efforts need to be made to recruit women and minorities into MD-PhD programs and, once recruited, to understand the drivers behind the differences that have emerged in their career paths.

Authors

Myles H. Akabas, Lawrence F. Brass

×

Figure 1

Distribution of MD-PhD program graduates by sex and race/ethnicity who graduated during the indicated decadal intervals.

Options: View larger image (or click on image) Download as PowerPoint
Distribution of MD-PhD program graduates by sex and race/ethnicity who g...
(A) Numbers of men (orange) and women (blue) who graduated in the indicated cohorts. Percentage of women graduates is indicated above each bar. Note that the numbers represent all graduates identified by the participating programs, including survey responders and nonresponders. (B) Number of survey responders who identified as belonging to a group defined by the NIH as underrepresented in medicine (UIM) (gray) and all other survey responders (non-UIM) (blue) who graduated in the indicated cohorts. Percentage of UIM graduates is indicated above each bar.

Copyright © 2023 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN 2379-3708

Sign up for email alerts