scholarly journals From bedside to benchmarks: A physician-scientist workforce dashboard for biomedical research institutions

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (5) ◽  
pp. 305-311
Author(s):  
Adrienne Zell ◽  
Lindsey Smith ◽  
N. David Yanez ◽  
Jeanne-Marie Guise ◽  
Ryan Pelkey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Complete Picture ◽  
Data Generation ◽  
Research Institutions ◽  
National Data ◽  
Oregon Health ◽  
Physician Scientist ◽  
Research Workforce ◽  
Physician Scientists

AbstractIntroductionThere is growing concern about the declining physician-scientist workforce. NIH recently provided a national dashboard describing the biomedical research workforce, but local strategies are needed.MethodsWe used curated local and national data to develop a workforce dashboard.ResultsMany trends at Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) were similar to those nationally, such as the increasing percentage of Research Project Grant (RPG)-holding PhDs and the aging RPG population, but differences were also apparent. At OHSU, nearly ¾ of physician-scientist RPGs hold MD-only, compared with nationally, where nearly half are MD/PhD. OHSU also lags in the percentage of RPGs held by women physician-scientists.ConclusionsOur analysis also permitted us to gain a more complete picture of research funding that has been done nationally. We used these data to develop a dashboard that allows our institution to develop policies to increase the numbers of physician-scientists. The data generation approaches and dashboard are likely to be useful at other institutions, as well.

scholarly journals 3292 Duke Integrated Physician-Scientist Development

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (s1) ◽  
pp. 67-68
Author(s):  
Stephanie A. Freel ◽  
Michael Gunn ◽  
Andrew Alspaugh ◽  
Gowthami Arepally ◽  
Gerard Blobe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Students ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Junior Faculty ◽  
Research Engagement ◽  
School Of Medicine ◽  
Funding Program ◽  
Research Careers ◽  
Physician Scientist ◽  
Physician Scientists

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: 1.Identify barriers to pursuing research for physician trainees 2.Develop a sustainable pipeline of physician-scientists at Duke 3.Coordinate physician-scientist development programs across the School of Medicine under one central Office 4.Provide infrastructure and resources for all physician-scientists 5.Increase the number of MDs and MD/PhDs who pursue, succeed, and are retained in research METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: To establish a baseline understanding of the needs and concerns of physician-scientist trainees at Duke, we conducted focus groups using a standardized interview guide and thematic analysis. Findings from these focus groups were used to develop a framework for support, leading to the creation of the Office of Physician-Scientist Development (OPSD) housed centrally within the Duke School of Medicine. The OPSD integrates programs and resources for multiple populations including medical students, residents, fellows, junior faculty, and faculty mentors. Pipeline programs will also be developed to enhance research engagement in targeted student populations prior to medical school. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: A total of 45 students and faculty participated in the focus groups and structured interviews (1st year medical student, n=11; 4th year medical students, n=11; residents/fellows, n=13; junior faculty, n=11). While participants raised a number of specific issues, one key message emerged: non-PhD MDs in basic research felt they lacked opportunities for directed training. Moreover, they felt the need to teach themselves many critical skills through trial and error. This has led to perceptions that they cannot compete effectively with PhDs and MD-PhD scientists for research funding and positions. Consensus recommendations included: better guidance in choosing mentors, labs, and projects; central resource for information relevant to physician scientists; training specifically tailored to physician scientists conducting laboratory-based research; improved infrastructure and well-defined training pathways; and assistance with grant preparation. To-date, over 90 students, residents, and fellows have been identified who identify as laboratory-based physician scientists. Additional efforts are underway to identify and characterize the broader range of physician-scientist students and trainees at Duke. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Our planning study revealed specific steps forward toward developing a robust community of physician-scientists at Duke. As a first step, the Dean of the School of Medicine has appointed an Associate Dean of Physician-Scientist Development to oversee a new Office of Physician-Scientist Development (OPSD) being launched in December of 2018. The OPSD will offer four primary programs. 1) A concierge mentoring program will assist new trainees in identifying research areas of interest and mentors. Trainees will receive periodic contact to provide additional support as needed and promote success. 2) A physician-scientist training program is being created to provide training specific to laboratory research skills as well as career and professional development training to complement existing clinical and translational research programs. 3) Integrated training pathways will provide additional mentored research training for those pursuing research careers. Pathways will capitalize on existing resources from R38 programs, while pursuing additional R38 and R25 support. 4) An MD-Scientist funding program has been developed to provide additional research funding and protected time for students pursuing a second research year. Through the support and programming offered by the OPSD, we anticipate decreased perceptions of barriers to pursuing a physician-scientist career and increased satisfaction with training opportunities. Over time, we expect such support to increase the number of MD students pursuing research as a career and the number of residents, fellows, and MD junior faculty remaining in research careers.

scholarly journals Supporting the Development of Physician-scientists

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mimi Xiaoming Deng
Keyword(s):  
Research Funding ◽  
Medical Training ◽  
Clinical Excellence ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Investigator ◽  
Research Involvement ◽  
Research Mentorship ◽  
Physician Scientist ◽  
Physician Scientists

In the last decade, there has been a discrepancy between the increasing recognition for research involvement in medical training and the stagnation in the number physician-scientists. Health research funding cutbacks, inadequate mentorship, heavy schedules, and unfamiliarity with scientific methodology are obstacles that limit research interest amongst junior medical learners and cause attrition of promising physician-scientist in training. This article outlines five strategies to promote and facilitate the development of physician-scientists with the understanding that research is integral to clinical excellence. Some of the ways the undergraduate and postgraduate medical curricula can better lend themselves to producing clinicians with the skillset to address clinical uncertainties through an evidence-based approach are: partnerships between healthcare and academia, increasing admission to MD/PhD and Clinical Investigator programs, establishing fundamentals of scientific thinking, long-term research mentorship, facilitating knowledge translation.

Physician Scientists Of Yesterday, Today And Tomorrow

2021 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. E72-79
Author(s):  
Ryan H. Kirkpatrick ◽  
J. Gordon Boyd
Keyword(s):  
21St Century ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Research Teams ◽  
Current State ◽  
Historical Role ◽  
Physician Scientist ◽  
Scientific Fields ◽  
Physician Scientists

While the separate roles of physicians and scientists are well defined, the role of a physician scientist is broad and variable. In today’s society, physician scientists are seen as a hybrid between the two fields and they are, therefore, expected to be key to the translation of biomedical research into clinical care. This article offers a narrative review on physician scientists and endeavours to answer whether there is an ongoing need for physician scientists today. The historical role of physician scientists is discussed and compared with physician scientists of the 21st century. Fundamental differences and similarities between the separate roles of physicians and scientists are examined as well as the current state of bench to bedside research. Finally, the ability of 21st century physician scientists to impact their respective medical and scientific fields in comparison to non-physician scientists will be discussed. This paper speculates as to why numbers of physician scientists are dwindling and uses the COVID-19 pandemic as an example of rapid translational research. Ultimately, we suggest that physician scientists are important and may have the most impact on their field by working to connect bedside and bench rather than simply working separately in the bedside and bench. To do this, physician scientists may need to lead clinical research teams composed of individuals from diverse training backgrounds.

The challenge of private biomedical research funding in Italy

10.1038/5491 ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudio Bordignon
Keyword(s):  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Research Funding

scholarly journals Funding patterns for biomedical research and infectious diseases burden in Gabon

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Olouyomi Scherif Adegnika ◽  
Yabo Josiane Honkpehedji ◽  
Fabrice Mougeni Lotola ◽  
Selidji Todagbe Agnandji ◽  
Ayola Akim Adegnika ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Negative Correlation ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Rank Correlation ◽  
Significant Negative Correlation ◽  
World Health ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Research Partnerships ◽  
Malaria Burden ◽  
Burden Of Diseases

Abstract Background Biomedical research plays an important role in improving health. There seems to exist a negative correlation between the amount of biomedical research funding and disease burden from all Sub-Saharan African countries. In this study, we describe funding patterns for biomedical research, explore the correlation between funding and burden of diseases, and quantify inequalities in funds distribution across diseases in Gabon over the period 2005–2015. Methods Data on medical research funds from 2005 to 2015 were retrieved through a structured questionnaire distributed to Gabonese biomedical research institutions and by consulting online databases. Data on the burden of diseases were gathered from the World Health Organization and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. We used Kendall rank correlation coefficient to explore the correlation between cumulative funds over time and the burden of disease. The inequality distribution of funding across diseases was assessed through Gini coefficient and Lorenz curve. Results Biomedical research funding was characterized by a remarkable growth from 2005 to 2010 and a decline from 2010 to 2014. Funds were mostly from external sources and from partnerships. There was inequality in research funds allocation across diseases and malaria was far the most funded disease. There was a significant negative correlation between cumulative funding and the burden of HIV, tuberculosis, and of Helminthiasis (from 2006 to 2010) suggesting that research may be contributing to the management of such diseases. A positive, although not significant, correlation was found between cumulative funds and malaria burden. Conclusions The negative correlation between HIV and tuberculosis cumulative funding and burden suggests that research may be contributing to the management of such diseases but further research is needed to assess the causal direction of such as relationship. As the burden of non-communicable diseases is increasing, more research funds should be focused on those. While research partnerships have been and will remain fundamental, Gabon should increase the amount of national funds to overcome periods of reduced research funding flows from abroad.

scholarly journals An Analysis of Canadian Institute for Health Research Funding for Research on Autism Spectrum Disorder

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
R. Deonandan ◽  
E. Y. Liu ◽  
B. Kolisnyk ◽  
A. T. M. Konkle
Keyword(s):  
Autism Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Institutional Response ◽  
Behavioural Interventions ◽  
Canadian Institute

We examined patterns of Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR) funding on autism spectrum disorder (ASD) research. From 1999 to 2013, CIHR funded 190 ASD grants worth $48 million. Biomedical research received 43% of grants (46% of dollars), clinical research 27% (41%), health services 10% (7%), and population health research 8% (3%). The greatest number of grants was given in 2009, but 2003 saw the greatest amount. Funding is clustered in a handful of provinces and institutions, favouring biomedical research and disfavouring behavioural interventions, adaptation, and institutional response. Preference for biomedical research may be due to the detriment of clinical research.

Advisory Committees in Biomedical Research and Training

2017 ◽  
pp. 68-88
Author(s):  
Argentina Ornelas
Keyword(s):  
Graduate Education ◽  
Workforce Development ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Education And Training ◽  
Educational Training ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Research Education ◽  
Research Workforce ◽  
And Training

Biomedical Research Training falls under the umbrella of Graduate Education at higher education institutions. The extent that advisory committees play in such training is not well documented, as these change from institution to institution. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the guiding federal agency that provides the bulk of financial support to biomedical research institutions, provides input in training and workforce development based on the research of their internal advisory committees. Discussed is the background of advisory committees in guiding graduate education and the roles of advisory committees in biomedical research education and training. Discussed are the roles of advisory committees at various levels of biomedical research education and training, from funding agencies (NIH), to advisory committees guiding training programs and delivering trainee advice at individual institutions. Discussion of the challenges in establishing advisory committees to develop a productive biomedical research workforce will ensue, as we shift from educational training to workforce development.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document