Doctoral nursing education in east and Southeast Asia: characteristics of the programs and students' experiences of and satisfaction with their studies.

BACKGROUND: The characteristics of nursing doctoral programs and the doctoral students' experience have not been thoroughly investigated. Hence, this study aimed to describe the characteristics of nursing doctoral programs in East and South East Asian (ESEA) countries and regions from the views of doctoral program coordinators, and to explore the students' experiences of and satisfaction with their doctoral nursing program. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using two self-designed questionnaires, one focusing on PhD program coordinators and the other on doctoral students. Characteristics of the nursing doctoral programs focused on program characteristics, faculty characteristics, career pathways for graduates, and challenges for nursing doctoral education. Doctoral students' assessment of study experiences included quality of supervision, doctoral training programs, intellectual/cultural climate of institutions, general facilities/support, and the overall study experience and satisfaction. RESULTS: In the PhD coordinators survey, 46 institutions across nine ESEA countries and regions participated. More than half of nursing departments had academic members from other health science disciplines to supervise doctoral nursing students. The majority of graduates were holding academic or research positions in higher education institutions. Faculty shortages, delays in the completion of the program and inadequate financial support were commonly reported challenges for doctoral nursing education. In the students' survey, 193 doctoral students participated. 88.3% of the students were satisfied with the supervision they received from their supervisors; however, 79% reported that their supervisors 'pushed' them to publish research papers. For doctoral training programs, 75.5% were satisfied with their curriculum; but around half reported that the teaching training components (55.9%) and mobility opportunities (54.2%) were not included in their programs. For overall satisfaction with the intellectual and cultural climate, the percentages were 76.1 and 68.1%, respectively. Only 66.7% of the students felt satisfied with the facilities provided by their universities and nursing institutions. CONCLUSION: Doctoral nursing programs in most of the ESEA countries value the importance of both research and coursework. Doctoral nursing students generally hold positive experiences of their study. However, incorporating more teaching training components, providing more opportunities for international mobility, and making more effort to improve research-related facilities may further enhance the student experience. There is also a need to have international guidelines and standards for quality indicators of doctoral programs to maintain quality and find solutions to global challenges in nursing doctoral education.

The clinician-scientist track: an approach addressing Australia's need for a pathway to train its future clinical academic workforce.

BACKGROUND: Clinician-scientist training represents the epitome of preparation for biomedical scientific discovery. The significance of, and need for, clinician-scientists is universally recognised as essential to progress medical research across what is regarded as the 'translational gap'. Despite a rich history of cutting-edge biomedical research, Australia has no infrastructure or career pathway for training clinician-scientists. DISCUSSION: The Clinician-scientist Track (CST) was developed to address this concern at the University of Queensland. The CST concept began in 2010 with the Concurrent MD-Masters that allowed students to undertake a research Masters concurrently with their medical program. The rationale was to offer an attractive and realistic option to recruit our highest performing students into a research higher degree, with the underlying aim of encouraging those most capable, to transfer to the MD-PhD. The Concurrent MD-Masters was immediately popular and remains so. Over 8 years, enrolments rose seven-fold (60 MD-Masters, 36 MD-PhDs). The transfer rate from MD-Masters to MD-PhD is 28% supporting our original aim. CONCLUSIONS: Many challenges remain for the future of the program. These challenges are underpinned by a culture that values clinician-scientists as crucial to ensuring that high quality health and medical research is undertaken and translated to patient care, but lags behind in establishing an infrastructure to develop and maintain a new generation of this vital workforce. A future challenge is to develop a coordinated approach to a supported Australian MD-PhD pathway for our most talented and committed students beginning in the undergraduate Bachelor's degree into the medical degree and throughout specialty training. Shared responsibility is necessary between institutions and stakeholders to support and nurture newly trained MD-PhDs into the post-graduate years. Flexibility across this medical training continuum that allows integration of both degrees will help ensure students make the most meaningful connections between the research and the medicine. What is paramount will be acknowledging the career expectations of an emerging cohort of medical students, in particular females, wishing to pursue research. Without these considerations we risk losing our next generation of potential clinician-scientists.

Breaking new ground? The dual (PhD-DNP) doctoral degree in Nursing.

PURPOSE: 1) Provide background information on the PhD-DNP dual doctoral degree, specifically historical perspectives and existing programs; 2) Describe one PhD-DNP program as an exemplar to illustrate program data challenges and solutions; and 3) Discuss the national landscape of the dual doctoral degree program. PRINCIPAL RESULTS: PhD-DNP dual doctoral degree programs have existed for 10 years; there are five known programs nationally. Reported here for one dual doctoral degree program are data collected from the program's inception (2010) through 2019. These data include demographic program characteristics, time to degree, and achievements during and after the program. Challenges pertaining to mentorship, progression to degree, socialization and student productivity also are described. Strategies for moving the dual degree forward nationally depend on a collaborative effort for data generation and collection from existing PhD-DNP programs. These data can be instrumental for seeking funding for dual doctoral degree programs. CONCLUSIONS: The dual PhD-DNP degree has not yet gained a foothold nationally. There is demand for the program by nursing doctoral students and availability of these programs is slowly increasing. National nursing leaders and organizations can consider developing metrics and collecting data that will lend support to future funding initiatives for the dual degree.