Physician-Scientist Development
Abstract
The 2018 National MD-PhD Program Outcomes Study highlighted the critical need to increase MD-PhD trainee diversity and close the gender gap in MD-PhD enrollment. This Association of American Medical Colleges imperative prompted us to evaluate trends in female matriculation from our institutional MD-PhD program compared with national data. Based on a 10-year review of Harvard/MIT Medical Scientist Training Program admissions, we observed a sharp and sustained increase in female matriculants for the past 5 years that is well above the national average. We report our experience with achieving gender parity among matriculants of our MD-PhD program, identify the specific stage of the admissions process where the gender balance acutely shifted, and attribute the increase in female matriculation to concrete administrative changes that were put into place just prior to the observed gender balance shift. These changes included increasing the number of faculty participants in application screening and awardee selection and establishing gender balance among faculty decision makers. We believe that adopting basic administrative practices geared toward increasing the diversity of perspectives among admissions faculty has the potential to expedite gender parity of MD-PhD matriculants nationwide and could eventually help achieve gender balance in the national physician-scientist workforce.
Authors
Temperance R. Rowell, Robert A. Redd, Donna S. Neuberg, Loren D. Walensky
Abstract
MD-PhD programs were established in the 1950s as a new curriculum for training physician-scientists. Since then, the number of programs has grown considerably; however, concerns about the health of the US physician-scientist workforce have grown, as well. The largest attempt to date to assess whether MD-PhD programs are fulfilling their mission was the national MD-PhD program outcomes study, which was released as an American Association of Medical Colleges report in 2018. That study gathered information on 10,591 graduates of 80 MD-PhD programs over 50 years and concluded that most graduates have followed careers consistent with their training. Here, we provide additional analysis, drawing on survey data provided by 64.1% of alumni (75.9% of alumni with valid email addresses), plus program-supplied current workplace data for survey nonresponders to examine the relationships between medical specialty choices, training duration, research effort, and success in obtaining research funding. The results show that residency choices affect critical aspects of the physician-scientist career path, including where graduates work, how long it takes them to obtain an independent appointment in academia, and the amount of their professional time that is devoted to research. Entrants into MD-PhD programs are older, on average, now than when the programs were first established and are taking longer to graduate and complete postgraduate training. Although we found a positive relationship between professional effort devoted to research and the likelihood of having research funding, we found little evidence that the increase in training duration produces an increase in subsequent research effort. These data should provide both guidance for anyone considering this career path and insights for those who train and hire the next generation of physician-scientists.
Authors
Lawrence F. Brass, Myles H. Akabas
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
Abstract
Authors
Christopher S. Williams, Audra N. Iness, Rebecca M. Baron, Olujimi A. Ajijola, Patrick J. Hu, Jatin M. Vyas, Robert Baiocchi, Alexander J. Adami, Jeremie M. Lever, Peter S. Klein, Linda Demer, Michael Madaio, Mark Geraci, Lawrence F. Brass, Melvin Blanchard, Robert Salata, Mone Zaidi
No posts were found with this tag.
