Pearls of wisdom for aspiring physician-scientist residency applicants and program directors.

Postgraduate physician-scientist training programs (PSTPs) enhance the experiences of physician-scientist trainees following medical school graduation. PSTPs usually span residency and fellowship training, but this varies widely by institution. Applicant competitiveness for these programs would be enhanced, and unnecessary trainee anxiety relieved, by a clear understanding of what factors define a successful PSTP matriculant. Such information would also be invaluable to PSTP directors and would allow benchmarking of their admissions processes with peer programs. We conducted a survey of PSTP directors across the US to understand the importance they placed on components of PSTP applications. Of 41 survey respondents, most were from internal medicine and pediatrics residency programs. Of all components in the application, two elements were considered very important by a majority of PSTP directors: (a) having one or more first-author publications and (b) the thesis advisor's letter. Less weight was consistently placed on factors often considered more relevant for non-physician-scientist postgraduate applicants - such as US Medical Licensing Examination scores, awards, and leadership activities. The data presented here highlight important metrics for PSTP applicants and directors and suggest that indicators of scientific productivity and commitment to research outweigh traditional quantitative measures of medical school performance.

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

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.

The national MD-PhD program outcomes study: Relationships between medical specialty, training duration, research effort, and career paths.

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.

History and Outcomes of 50 Years of Physician-Scientist Training in Medical Scientist Training Programs.

Physician-scientists are needed to continue the great pace of recent biomedical research and translate scientific findings to clinical applications. MD-PhD programs represent one approach to train physician-scientists. MD-PhD training started in the 1950s and expanded greatly with the Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP), launched in 1964 by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) at the National Institutes of Health. MD-PhD training has been influenced by substantial changes in medical education, science, and clinical fields since its inception. In 2014, NIGMS held a 50th Anniversary MSTP Symposium highlighting the program and assessing its outcomes. In 2016, there were over 90 active MD-PhD programs in the United States, of which 45 were MSTP supported, with a total of 988 trainee slots. Over 10,000 students have received MSTP support since 1964. The authors present data for the demographic characteristics and outcomes for 9,683 MSTP trainees from 1975-2014. The integration of MD and PhD training has allowed trainees to develop a rigorous foundation in research in concert with clinical training. MSTP graduates have had relative success in obtaining research grants and have become prominent leaders in many biomedical research fields. Many challenges remain, however, including the need to maintain rigorous scientific components in evolving medical curricula, to enhance research-oriented residency and fellowship opportunities in a widening scope of fields targeted by MSTP graduates, to achieve greater racial diversity and gender balance in the physician-scientist workforce, and to sustain subsequent research activities of physician-scientists.