Physician-scientist Workforce Research Articles

Comment on: A Call to Action: Urgently Strengthening the Future Physician-Scientist Workforce in Infectious Diseases.

Comment on: A Call to Action: Urgently Strengthening the Future Physician-Scientist Workforce in Infectious Diseases.

Career trajectories of MD-PhD physician scientists: The loss of women investigators

Advances in biomedical research require a robust physician scientist workforce. Despite being equally successful at securing early career awards from the NIH as men, women MD-PhD physician scientists are less likely to serve as principal investigators on mid- and later careers awards. Here, Steinman etal. discuss the causes of gender disparities in academic medicine, the implications of losing highly trained women physician scientists, and the institutional and systemic changes needed to sustain this pool of talented investigators.

Sociodemographic factors and research experience impact MD-PhD program acceptance.

The 2014 NIH Physician-Scientist Workforce Working Group predicted a future shortage of physician-scientists. Subsequent studies have highlighted disparities in MD-PhD admissions based on race, income, and education. Our analysis of data from the Association of American Medical Colleges covering 2014-2021 (15,156 applicants and 6,840 acceptees) revealed that acceptance into US MD-PhD programs correlates with research experience, family income, and research publications. The number of research experiences associated with parental education and family income. Applicants were more likely to be accepted with a family income greater than $50,000 or with one or more publications or presentations. Applicants were less likely to be accepted if they had parents without a graduate degree, were Black/African American, were first-generation college students, or were reapplicants, irrespective of the number of research experiences, publications, or presentations. These findings underscore an admissions bias that favors candidates from affluent and highly educated families, while disadvantaging underrepresented minorities.

How to diversify the dwindling physician-scientist workforce after the US affirmative action ban.

How to diversify the dwindling physician-scientist workforce after the US affirmative action ban.

Making the match and breaking it: values, perceptions, and obstacles of trainees applying into physician-scientist training programs

BackgroundReplenishing the physician-scientist workforce constitutes a central mission of medical education, but the loss of qualified trainees to non-academic positions remains an ongoing threat. Among the barriers facing physician-scientists today is the game-like model of U.S. medical residency matching through the National Research Matching Program (NRPM), which applies several assumptions regarding the comparability of applicant qualifications, cohort size, and the institutional breadth of applicants’ training needs.MethodsThe current report therefore summarizes the survey-based views and experiences of physician-scientist trainees obtained following the 2021–2022 application cycle for research-oriented residency programs, or physician-scientist training programs (PSTPs). From among this small cohort of applicants, we obtained survey-based feedback of 27 PSTP applicants across 17 U.S. medical universities, among whom 85% (23/27) matched into a PSTP.ResultsAmong these PSTP applicants, 25/27 (93%) recognized “scientific community” as the most important feature of a postgraduate training program, with applicants identifying as female placing a higher value on the program’s infrastructure of personal and/or family support. Most (18/27) respondents found “waiting for interviews” as the most stressful phase of their application cycle, and roughly half of all respondents encountered at least one NRMP policy violation through post-interview communication. Specifically, 93% (25/27) respondents were contacted by at least one PSTP following interviews, and 1/3 of them admitted to feeling pressured into sharing their ranking preferences.ConclusionWe highlight many previously unrecognized priorities among applicants to PSTPs, which include fostering community among its trainees and reinforcing structured mentoring. We uncover an inconsistency among PSTPs regarding the post-interview process, which represents an opportunity to better support applicants seeking to gauge programs according to their clinical, scientific, and academic interests as physician-scientists, while still adhering to NRMP policies.

The ARC, Diversity, and the Physician-Scientist Workforce

The ARC, Diversity, and the Physician-Scientist Workforce

Climbing the ladder: toward a robust and diverse physician-scientist workforce.

Climbing the ladder: toward a robust and diverse physician-scientist workforce.

Variation in Research Experiences and Publications During Medical School by Sex and Race and Ethnicity

Diverse research teams are critical to solving complex health problems and producing high-quality medical research. To examine the associations of student sex and racial and ethnic identity with publication rates during medical school. This cohort study assessed individual-level data of US MD graduates from medical school who matriculated in academic years 2014 to 2015 and 2015 to 2016. Data were obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges and analyzed from October 2021 to January 2022. Outcomes of interest included students' self-reported participation in unique research experiences, number of publications, and computed publications per research experience. Poisson regressions were constructed to determine the association of sex and racial and ethnic identity with research outcomes using adjusted rate ratios (aRRs). Among 31 474 graduates, 15 159 (48.2%) identified as women and 4344 (13.8%) identified as underrepresented in medicine by race and ethnicity (URIM; including American Indian, Alaska Native, Black, Hawaiian Native, Hispanic/Latinx, and Pacific Islander individuals). Students who attended National Institutes of Health (NIH) top 40 research-ranked schools reported higher number of research experiences and publication counts, resulting in a higher publication rate compared with students from non-top 40 schools (median [IQR] 1.60 [1.00-3.00] vs 1.25 [0.50-2.33]; P < .001). Women reported a higher number of research experiences than men but a significantly lower number of publications (top 40 schools: aRR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.87-0.90; non-top 40 schools: aRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.92-0.95). This resulted in a significantly lower publication rate among women (top 40 schools: aRR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.83-0.86; non-top 40 schools: aRR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.90-0.92). Compared with White students, Asian students had higher publication rates at both NIH top 40 schools (aRR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.12) and non-top 40 schools (aRR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.05-1.08), while lower publication rates were reported among Black students (top 40 schools: aRR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.80-0.86; non-top 40 schools: aRR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.95) and Hispanic students attending non-top 40 schools (aRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.95). These findings illustrate that inequities in the physician-scientist workforce began early in training and highlight key areas for intervention, such as funding support and mentorship training during undergraduate medical education, that may promote the future success of a diverse physician-scientist workforce.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Physician-Scientist Trainees and Faculty in the United States: A National Survey.

Physician-scientists have long been considered an endangered species, and their extended training pathway is vulnerable to disruptions. This study investigated the effects of COVID-19-related challenges on the personal lives, career activities, stress levels, and research productivity of physician-scientist trainees and faculty. The authors surveyed medical students (MS), graduate students (GS), residents/fellows (R/F), and faculty (F) using a tool distributed to 120 U.S. institutions with MD-PhD programs in April-June 2020. Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used to compare differences between groups. Machine learning was employed to select variables for multivariate logistic regression analyses aimed at identifying factors associated with stress and impaired productivity. The analyses included 1,929 respondents (MS: n = 679, 35%; GS: n = 676, 35%; R/F: n = 274, 14%; F: n = 300, 16%). All cohorts reported high levels of social isolation, stress from effects of the pandemic, and negative impacts on productivity. R/F and F respondents were more likely than MS and GS respondents to report financial difficulties due to COVID-19. R/F and F respondents with a dual degree expressed more impaired productivity compared with those without a dual degree. Multivariate regression analyses identified impacted research/scholarly activities, financial difficulties, and social isolation as predictors of stress and impaired productivity for both MS and GS cohorts. For both R/F and F cohorts, impacted personal life and research productivity were associated with stress, while dual-degree status, impacted research/scholarly activities, and impacted personal life were predictors of impaired productivity. More female than male respondents reported increased demands at home. This national survey of physician-scientist trainees and faculty found a high incidence of stress and impaired productivity related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the challenges faced and their consequences may improve efforts to support the physician-scientist workforce in the postpandemic period.

Physician-scientists in the United States at 2020: Trends and concerns.

Physician‐scientists comprise a unique and valuable part of the biomedical workforce, but for decades there has been concern about the number of physicians actively engaged in research. Reports have outlined the challenges facing physician‐scientists, and programs have been initiated to encourage and facilitate research careers for medically trained scientists. Many of these initiatives have demonstrated successful outcomes, but there has not been a recent summary of the impact of the past decade of effort. This report compiles available data from surveys of medical education and physician research participation to assess changes in the physician‐scientist workforce from 2011–2020. Several trends are positive: rising enrollments in MD‐PhD programs, greater levels of interest in research careers among matriculating medical students, more research experience during medical school and rising numbers of physicians in academic medicine, and an increase in first R01 grants to physician‐scientists. However, there are now decreased levels of interest in research careers among graduating medical students, a steady decline in MDs applying for NIH loan repayment program support, an increased age at first R01 grant success for physicians, and fewer physicians reporting research as their primary work activity: all of these indicators create concern for the stability of the career path. Despite a recommendation by the Physician‐Scientist Workforce in 2014 to create “real‐time” reporting on NIH grants and grantees to help the public assess trends, this initiative has not been completed. Better information is still needed to fully understand the status of the physician‐scientist workforce, and to assess efforts to stabilize this vulnerable career path.

A Competency-Guided Approach to Optimizing a Physician-Scientist Curriculum

Physician-scientists are uniquely positioned to achieve significant biomedical advances to improve the human condition. Their clinical and scientific training allows them to bridge fields and contribute to cutting-edge, clinically relevant research. The need for a highly skilled physician-scientist workforce has never been more acute. We propose a competency-guided program design (CGPD) framework that focuses on core skills to enhance the physician-scientist training curriculum. In partnership with clinical and graduate curricula, the CGPD framework can be employed as a tool to meaningfully integrate physician-scientist training, address barriers to attract and sustain the physician-scientist workforce, and avoid overprogramming that detracts from a solid foundation of clinical and graduate research training.

More than grit: growing and sustaining physician-scientists in obstetrics and gynecology

Obstetricians know the statistics-1 out of every 10 babies is born premature; preeclampsia affects 1 in 25 pregnant people; the United States has the highest rate of maternal mortality in the developed world. Yet, physicians and scientists still do not fully understand the biology of normal pregnancy, letalone what causes these complications. Obstetrics and gynecology-trained physician-scientists are uniquely positioned to fill critical knowledge gaps by addressing clinically-relevant problems through fundamental research and interpreting insights from basic and translational studies in the clinical context. Within our specialty, however, physician-scientists are relatively uncommon. Inadequate guidance, lack of support and community, and structural barriers deter fellows and early stage faculty from pursuing the physician-scientist track. One approach to help cultivate the next generation of physician-scientists in obstetrics and gynecology is to demystify the process and address the common barriers that contribute to the attrition of early stage investigators. Here, we review major challenges and propose potential pathways forward in the areas of mentorship, obtaining protected research time and resources, and ensuring diversity, equity, and inclusion, from our perspective as early stage investigators in maternal-fetal medicine. We discuss the roles of early stage investigators and leaders at the institutional and national level in the collective effort to retain and grow our physician-scientist workforce. We aim to provide a framework for early stage investigators initiating their research careers and a starting point for discussion with academic stakeholders. We cannot afford to lose the valuable contributions of talented individuals due to modifiable factors or forfeit our voices as advocates for the issues that impact pregnant populations.

Changing Demographics of NIDDK-Funded Physician-Scientists Doing Kidney Research.

Although US physician-scientists have made enormous contributions to biomedical research, this workforce is thought to be getting smaller. However, among kidney researchers, changes have not been fully quantified. We mined National Institutes of Health RePORTER to explore demographic changes of early-career and established physician and nonphysician principal investigators doing kidney-focused research. We searched for National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)-funded K series and R01 awards focused on the kidney that were active between 1990 and 2020 and determined if their emphasis was basic or clinical science. We then used public databases available on the internet to determine if these funded investigators were physicians or nonphysicians, the year in which they received either their MD (physicians) or their terminal graduate degree (nonphysicians), their sex, and whether they received their terminal degree from a US or international institution. Kidney-focused R01-funded principal investigators are aging, particularly among physicians. Moreover, the relative representation of physicians among both early-career and established principal investigators is falling, particularly among those doing basic science research. In contrast, the number and relative representation of nonphysician-scientists are increasing. There is also greater representation of women and international graduates among physician and nonphysician R01-funded, kidney-focused NIDDK investigators. However, although there are greater numbers of women physician principal investigators doing both basic as well as clinical research, women physician principal investigators are increasingly more likely to do clinical rather than basic science research. The physician-scientist workforce is increasingly made up of women and international medical graduates. However, the physician-scientist workforce is older and represents a smaller proportion of all principal investigators, particularly among those doing basic science research.

To train the qualified physician-scientists

As advances in medicine have progressed, the development of medical science faces the challenge of significant separation between basic medical research and medical clinical practice. As the bridge between medicine and science, physicians-scientists have a unique potential to combine clinical perspectives with scientific insights. They are defined as doctors with professional degrees who have training in clinical care and are engaged in independent biomedical research. Physician-scientists continue the great pace of recent biomedical research, translate scientific findings to clinical applications and play a vital role in promoting the development of medical science. Without supporting efforts of physician-scientists who have been systematically trained in medicine and science, pressing challenges cannot be met at the forefront of biomedicine. Given the importance of developing the physician-scientist workforce, well-known MD-PhD training programs started in the 1950s. These programs expanded significantly when the Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) was launched in 1964 by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) at the National Institutes of Health. MSTP has supported over 10000 students who have successfully trained outstanding biomedical scientists and top talents for the United States. In China, the era of health promotion driven by innovation is upon us, and a large number of physician-scientists are needed to meet the development of medical science. Some practices provide preliminary exploration for training physician-scientists, such as MD-PhD programs supported by famous medical schools and the inception of a research hospital. However, physician-scientists have become an “endangered species”. It has been reported that physician-scientists are less likely to play a major role in biomedical research than they were in the past in the United States. This article examines the barriers of physician-scientists with regard to participation in clinical research, such as physician-, research subject-, and institution- and research hospital-related barriers. The future viability and vitality of the physician-scientist workforce pose unique challenges. To encourage physician-scientist participation, strategies are proposed to provide a new path for cultivating excellent physician-scientists. These strategies include proper understanding of the role of physician-scientists in medical innovation, scientific training systems at critical stages of career development, adequate research support from institutions and hospitals, reasonable evaluation and incentive systems, encouraging innovative academic culture, and personal active participation and effort. The great potential of translating scientific achievements into clinical practice and the complex challenges facing the development of medical science suggest the importance and necessity of physician-scientists. A variety of potential approaches should be taken to ensure physicians-scientists’ participation in clinical trials and basic research as well as the sustainable development of the physician-scientist team.

NIH funding trends for neurosurgeon-scientists from 1993-2017: Biomedical workforce implications for neurooncology.

Introduction:Neurosurgeons represent 0.5% of all physicians and currently face a high burden of disease. Physician-scientists are essential to advance the mission of National Academies of Science (NAS) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) through discovery and bench to bedside translation. We investigated trends in NIH neurosurgeon-scientist funding over time as an indicator of physician-scientist workforce training.Methods:We used NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORTER) to extract grants to neurosurgery departments and neurosurgeons from 1993 to 2017. Manual extraction of each individual grant awardee was conducted.Results:After adjusting for U.S. inflation (base year: 1993), NIH funding to neurosurgery departments increased yearly (P <0.00001). However, neurosurgeon-scientists received significantly less NIH funding compared to scientists (including basic scientists and research only neurosurgeons) (P = 0.09). The ratio of neurosurgeon-scientists to scientists receiving grants was significantly reduced (P = 0.002). Interestingly, the percentage of oncology-related neurosurgery grants significantly increased throughout the study period (P = 0.002). The average number of grants per neurosurgeon-scientists showed an upward trend (P <0.001); however, the average number of grants for early-career neurosurgeon-scientists, showed a significant downward trend (P = 0.05).Conclusion:Over the past 23 years, despite the overall increasing trends in the number of NIH grants awarded to neurosurgery departments overall, the proportion of neurosurgeon-scientists that were awarded NIH grants compared to scientists demonstrates a declining trend. This observed shift is disproportionate in the number of NIH grants awarded to senior level compared to early-career neurosurgeon-scientists, with more funding allocated towards neurosurgical-oncology-related grants.

Disparities in Gender and Race Among Physician-Scientists: A Call to Action and Strategic Recommendations.

The size of the physician-scientist workforce has declined for the past 3 decades, which raises significant concerns for the future of biomedical research. There is also a considerable gender disparity among physician-scientists. This disparity is exacerbated by race, resulting in a compounding effect for women of color. Proposed reasons for this disparity include the time and expense physicians must devote to obtaining specialized research training after residency while at the same time burdened with mounting medical school debt and domestic and caretaking responsibilities, which are disproportionately shouldered by women. These circumstances may contribute to the overall gender disparity in research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Women apply for NIH grants less often than men and are therefore less likely to receive an NIH grant. However, when women do apply for NIH grants, their funding success is comparable with that of men. Increasing representation of women and groups underrepresented in medicine (UIM) requires not only improving the pipeline (e.g., through training) but also assisting early- and midcareer women-and especially women who are UIM-to advance. In this article, the authors propose the following solutions to address the challenges women and other UIM individuals face at each of these career stages: developing specific NIH research training programs targeted to women and UIM individuals in medical school and residency; creating institutional and individual grant initiatives; increasing student loan forgiveness; setting up robust institutional mentorship programs for individuals seeking to obtain independent funding; providing childcare stipends as part of NIH grants; and instituting an NIH requirement that funded investigators participate in efforts to increase diversity in the physician-scientist workforce. Enabling more women and UIM individuals to enter and thrive in the physician-scientist workforce will increase the size and diversity of this critical component of biomedical research.

The Pediatric Neurology 2020 Research Workforce Survey: Optimism in a Time of Challenge

BackgroundThe past decades have seen a transformational shift in the understanding and treatment for neurological diseases affecting infants and children. These advances have been driven in part by the pediatric neurology physician-scientist workforce and its efforts. However, pediatric neurology research faces substantial challenges from internal and external forces including work-life balance demands, COVID-19 pandemic effects, and research funding. Understanding the impact of these challenges on the perceptions, planning, and careers of pediatric neurology physician-scientists is needed to guide the research mission. MethodsOur objective was to survey the research challenges, goals, and priorities of pediatric neurologists. In 2020 we conducted a cross-sectional, 28-question survey emailed to 1,775 members of the Child Neurology Society. ResultsOne hundred fifty-one individuals responded to the survey. Most respondents were grant investigators (52%) and conducted clinical research (69%). Research areas included epilepsy (23%), neurodevelopmental and autism (16%), neurocritical care and stroke (11%), neurogenetics and neurometabolics (9%), neonatal neurology (8%), and others. The most common funding source was the National Institutes of Health (37%). Shared major research concerns were funding, utilization of remote technology, overcoming disparities, natural history and multicenter studies, global neurology, and diversification of the research portfolio. Commitment to continuing and increasing research efforts was evident. ConclusionsOur survey demonstrates obstacles for physician-scientist researchers in pediatric neurology, but it also shows optimism about continued opportunity. Creative approaches to address challenges will benefit the research mission, maximize the current and future pool of researchers, and help improve the lives of children with neurological disorders.

Factors associated with underrepresented minority physician scientist trainee career choices

BackgroundRecently, there have been concerted efforts to improve racial and ethnic diversity in the physician-scientist workforce. Identifying factors associated with career choices among those underrepresented in medicine and science is a necessary first step to advance this objective. The aim of the present study was to assess the attitudes and factors associated with academic and research career interests among underrepresented predoctoral physician-scientists.MethodsA cross-sectional 70-question survey was distributed to all predoctoral single degree (MD or DO) and dual degree (MD/PhD or DO/PhD) trainees at 32 medical schools in the United States from 2012 to 2014. Main outcomes included factors important to advancement in academic medicine, intended medical specialty, and future career plans. To test the post-hoc hypothesis of whether trainees from underrepresented groups have differing perceptions of career trajectories and obstacles than their counterparts, we evaluated responses according to self-identified race/ethnic status using Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests. All tests were two-sided and significance level of < 0.05 was used.ResultsThere were a total of 4433 responses representing all predoctoral training stages. The response rate was 27%. Most respondents were single degree trainees (MD/DO 79% vs MD/DO-PhD 21%). Most respondents self-identified as White (67%), followed by Multi-racial or Other (14.3%), Asian or Pacific Islander (10.4%), Hispanic (6%), and Black or African American (4.1%). Desired career sector, career intention, and clinical specialty interest differed across race/ethnic groups. With respect to career selection factors, anticipated non-work related responsibilities during residency were also significantly different between these groups. By multivariable regression analysis, Black or African American trainees were significantly less likely than White trainees to indicate a career in academia (OR 0.496, 95% CI 0.322–0.764) and basic research (OR 0.314, 95% CI 0.115–0.857), while Multi-racial or Other trainees were also less likely than White trainees to indicate a career in academia (OR 0.763, 95% CI 0.594–0.980).ConclusionsThese data represent the first in-depth survey of career aspirations, perceptions, and interests between demographically underrepresented and non-underrepresented predoctoral physician-scientist trainees. Our results identify key differences between these cohorts, which may guide efforts to improve diversity within the physician-scientist workforce.

Impact of a Respiratory Disease Young Investigators' Forum on the Career Development of Physician-Scientists.

Background: To reverse the dramatic decline in the U.S. physician-scientist workforce, interventions are necessary to retain physicians in research careers.Objective: To evaluate the impact of an annual 3-day symposium, the Respiratory Disease Young Investigators’ Forum (RDYIF), designed to guide fellows and junior faculty into successful physician-scientist careers.Methods: In this retrospective, observational study, a questionnaire was e-mailed to 308 physicians who participated in the RDYIF between 2005 and 2018. The questionnaire was administered by National Jewish Health study personnel in the spring of 2019. Responses were primarily analyzed using descriptive and qualitative approaches.Results: The response rate was 39.3% (n = 121), with 107 of responders (88.4%) completing the full survey. The majority of survey completers currently worked as physician-scientists (76.6%; n = 82), held faculty positions (88.8%; n = 95) in an academic center (90.6%; n = 97), and were currently involved in research (93.4%; n = 100). The majority had been an author on ≥10 peer-reviewed publications (61.3%, n = 65) and had been awarded research grants (71.7%; n = 76). Thirty completers (28.3%) had served as a principal investigator on one or more clinical trials. Completers indicated that participation in the RDYIF had a “strong impact” or “very strong impact” on their career development as physician-scientists.Conclusion: Participation in the RDYIF strengthened participants’ interest in physician-scientist careers and appeared to track with successful career development. Young Investigator Forums such as the RDYIF may be an effective intervention to support the declining supply of physician-scientists in North America.

Inclusion in the Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine Physician-Scientist Workforce. Building with Intention.

Physician-scientists comprise an exceedingly small fraction of the physician workforce. As the fields of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine continue to invest in the development of the physician-scientist workforce, recruitment and retention strategies need to consider the temporal trend in the decline in numbers of trainees pursuing basic research, the challenges of trainees from underrepresented groups in medicine, and opportunities for career and scientific advancement of women physician-scientists. In this perspective article, we examine the headwinds in the training and education of physician-scientists and highlight potential solutions to reverse these trends.