다국적 의사과학자를 위한 논문쓰기 워크숍

Scientific Writing Training for Academic Physicians of Diverse Language Backgrounds

Carrie Cameron, PhD, Stephanie P. Deming, Beth Notzon, Scott B. Cantor, PhD,

Kristine R. Broglio, MS, and Walter Pagel





논문이란 학계(Academia)의 통화(coin of the realm)라 할 수 있으며, 논문을 낼 수 있느냐 없느냐 하는 것이 생의학연구자로서의 커리어에 중요하다. 동시에 다국적 협력 연구가 늘어나고 미국 학계에 외국 출신 교수와 연구자들이 크게 늘어나면서 또 다른 문제가 더해졌는데, 바로 영어 구사능력에 따른 한계이다. 그러나 역설적으로 영어 논문작성을 도와주거나 이 때 필요한 기술들을 가르쳐주는 프로그램은 거의 없다. 연구자들의 커리어 개발 준비를 위해서 Department of Scientific Publications at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center 에서는 심화 트레이닝 프로그램을 개설하였다. 22회 이상의 워크숍에 300명 이상의 참가자가 참석하였으며, 설문 결과 논문작성실력이 향상되었고, 논문작성을 시작하는게 수월해졌으며, 출판에도 도움이 되었다는 응답을 얻었다. 또한 비영어권 참가자들이 영어권 참가자들보다 더 도움이 되었다고 응답하였다. 

Research articles are the coin of the realm for anyone working in academia, and success or failure to publish determines a biomedical researcher's career path. At the same time, the dramatic increase in foreign faculty and trainees in U.S. academia, as well as in international scientific collaboration, adds another dimension to this developmental vacuum: limited English-language skills. Paradoxically, few programs exist to develop and support the skills needed to accomplish the vital task of writing English-language research articles, which does not come naturally to most. To better prepare all trainees for research careers, editors in the Department of Scientific Publications at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center created an in-depth training program that would target the writing skills gap effectively. Instruction focused on structure, rhetorical organization, and the conventions of biomedical publishing. More than 300 trainees have participated in 22 workshops. Results of a survey of 46 participants at 6 months to 2.5 years after workshop completion indicated that participants from all language backgrounds believed the course to have improved their writing (97.8% strongly agreed or agreed), made it easier to begin a manuscript (80.4%), and helped them to get published (56.8%), with nonnative speakers of English reporting somewhat greater perceived benefit than native English speakers. On the basis of these results, the authors conclude that researchers of varied linguistic backgrounds appreciate the need for, and benefit from, instruction in the conventions of scientific writing.






  • Although programs to teach effective writing are offered in some departments and institutions,1–4 few have been undertaken at the institutional level.
  • Indeed, the National Science Foundation reports that the number of foreign scientists and engineers working in academia in the United States has more than doubled in the last 35 years, whereas growth in the publication of internationally coauthored articles rose by more than 100% in the United States from 1988 to 2003.6
  • The result of this intense curriculum and staff development program was an 18- contact-hour workshop, “Writing and Publishing Scientific Articles” (WAPSA). First rolled out as a series of 12 weekly 1.5-hour modules, it is now offered as a series of three 6-hour modules offered during three consecutive weeks.



Workshop Design and Methodology

  • Research in applied linguistics has shown that NNES writers can benefit immediately from explicit instruction in the structural and rhetorical requirements of the English-language scientific article regardless of their mastery of English grammar.7–10,13,14
  • Measuring the effectiveness of writing interventions is notoriously difficult. Because an article can be perfectly written but lack an interesting problem or be based on unsound methodology,acceptance for publication cannot be used as a meaningful metric unless one has access to all reviewer comments. Measuring the improvement rate of an individual author (by increase in rate of acceptance to peer-reviewed journals) also has many complications, such as whether the author has had a study to publish, whether he or she was the primary author, etc. For these reasons, we devised a survey method that, although not based on purely objective criteria, would give us more reliable information than that of the in-class evaluations.






Lessons Learned

  • Because we were obliged to use a selection process to keep class size manageable, selection criteria needed to be developed. In our experience, the status of the registrant’s current research writing has emerged as one of the top selection criteria. Only those registrants who are ready to begin or have begun writing a manuscript are accepted into the workshop, and those who are still finishing research are asked to register for a subsequent section. Because a fair amount of workshop time is spent working on manuscripts, this practice ensures that there are no participants sitting idly while others are writing
  • As the workshop has matured over time, we have come to realize the social value that the workshop has for the participants. The workshops include participants from a wide variety of disciplines conducting a wide variety of research, and as the participants interact, they are able to discover more and better ways of conveying their ideas to others who are not already familiar with their work.
  • Finally, the affective value of the workshop has become apparent over time as well. As participants have shared their reactions, thoughts, and suggestions with us, we have developed an appreciation for the considerable amount of stress, worry, and self-doubt that many writers feel about beginning and managing the writing process and about their linguistic self-expression.








 2009 Apr;84(4):505-10. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31819a7e6d.

Scientific writing training for academic physicians of diverse language backgrounds.

Author information

  • 1Department of Scientific Publications, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77230-1439, USA. ccameron@mdanderson.org

Abstract

Research articles are the coin of the realm for anyone working in academia, and success or failure to publish determines a biomedical researcher's career path. At the same time, the dramatic increase in foreign faculty and trainees in U.S. academia, as well as in international scientificcollaboration, adds another dimension to this developmental vacuum: limited English-language skills. Paradoxically, few programs exist to develop and support the skills needed to accomplish the vital task of writing English-language research articles, which does not come naturally to most. To better prepare all trainees for research careers, editors in the Department of Scientific Publications at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center created an in-depth training program that would target the writing skills gap effectively. Instruction focused on structure, rhetorical organization, and the conventions of biomedical publishing. More than 300 trainees have participated in 22 workshops. Results of a survey of 46 participants at 6 months to 2.5 years after workshop completion indicated that participants from all language backgrounds believed the course to have improved their writing (97.8% strongly agreed or agreed), made it easier to begin a manuscript (80.4%), and helped them to get published (56.8%), with nonnative speakers of English reporting somewhat greater perceived benefit than native English speakers. On the basis of these results, the authors conclude that researchers of varied linguistic backgrounds appreciate the need for, and benefit from, instruction in the conventions of scientific writing.

PMID:
 
19318790
 
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


초보연구자들의 논문쓰기: 무엇을 어려워하고 무엇을 필요로하는가? 

Scientific Writing of Novice Researchers: What Difficulties and Encouragements Do They Encounter?

Jatin Shah, BAMS, Anand Shah, MD, MPH, and Ricardo Pietrobon, MD, PhD, MBA





PURPOSE:

초보 연구자들에게 논문작성은 겁나는 일이다. 본 연구에서 연구자들은 초보연구자들이 논문을 작성하는 과정에서 겪는 경험을 평가하여 주된 어려움이 무엇이며 어떤 도움이 필요한지 알아보았다.

Writing scientific articles is a daunting task for novice researchers. In this qualitative study carried out in 2007, the authors evaluated the experiences of a group of novice researchers engaged in the writing process, to elucidate the main difficulties and sources of encouragement they encountered.


METHOD:

16명의 초보연구자들을 면담하였다. 대부분 여성이었으며, 의학, 간호학, 물리치료 학위 소지자 순서로 많았다. 인터뷰 대상자는 온라인 논문작성 강의 수강에 대한 RCT에 참여한 사람들 중에서 Convenience sampling 방법을 활용하여 선정하였으며 각각 4명의 학생을 한 단위로 하여 포커스그룹 인터뷰를 진행하였다. 면담 결과는 녹취하여 두 명의 저자가 독립적으로 읽은 다음 grounded theory 원칙에 따라서 코딩하였다. 여기서 드러난 카테고리를 주요 주제로 변환시켜서 참여자들로 하여금 확인하게 하였고, 다섯 명의 글쓰기 교육 전문가들과의 토론을 통해 triangulation을 하였다.

Sixteen novice researchers were interviewed. Most were women (10), and most were enrolled in programs of medicine (9), followed by nursing (4) and physical therapy (3). These were drawn via convenience sampling from a randomized control trial in which 48 of them were equally assigned to either an online or a face-to-face course of instruction. On completion, interviews were conducted in focus groups of four students each. The interviews were transcribed and read independently by two of the authors, who then encoded the material based on the principles of grounded theory. Initial categories were converted to major emerging themes, which were validated when participants were asked to review the findings. Triangulation of results was carried out by discussing the emerging themes in an online forum with five specialists in college writing education.


RESULTS:

네 가지 주요 주제가 드러났다. 인지적 부담(cognitive burden), 공저자들의 지원과 멘토링(group support and mentoring), 구조와 내용을 모두 갖추는 것의 어려움(difficulty in distinguishing between content and structure), 원고의 후향적 설계(backward design of manuscript).

Classifying the diverse responses of participants led to the emergence of four major themes: cognitive burden, group support and mentoring, difficulty in distinguishing between content and structure, and backward design of manuscripts.


CONCLUSIONS:

본 연구에서 드러난 주제들로부터 초보연구자들이 어떤 어려움을 겪는가를 알 수 있었으며, 이러한 것들을 해결해줌으로써 논문작성에 큰 도움을 줄 수 있을 것이다.

The themes produced by this study provide some insight into the challenges faced by novice researchers in their early attempts at scientific writing. Remedies that address these challenges are needed to substantially improve scientific writing instruction.





  • Instruction in scientific writing and subsequent publication in peer-reviewed journals will help novice researchers refine their ideas and increase their expertise, because the act of writing is itself a valuable tool for learning and for fostering the scientific thought process2—this aligns with the principles of the “writing to learn” movement.3,4



  • Virtual writing environments were created with the application Writely, now known as Google Documents,10 which allowed documents to be shared among study participants and investigators. Local environments included word processors residing on participants’ computers, such as Microsoft Word or Open Office. Text structure templates were defined as a set of templates specifying the role of each text block (a subsection of a scientific manuscript that deals with a single idea or argument). For example, the template for the introduction specified that it should have four distinct subsections, or “text blocks”
    • (1) a statement of the topic’s significance, 
    • (2) a description of the information gap that the study addresses, 
    • (3) a literature review to support the claim of an information gap, and 
    • (4) the study objective.




Qualitative study

 

  • Following the convenience sampling method, a total of 16 novice researchers, who were students from the second and fourth years of their courses of study, were enrolled in the present qualitative study. Most students were women (10), and most were enrolled in medicine programs (9), followed by nursing (4) and physical therapy (3). Two of the students in medicine had previously worked on published manuscripts but had made only minor contributions and were not primary authors.
  • On completion of the writing task, we conducted interviews in four focus groups of four students each. To compare the experiences of the intervention and nonintervention participants, the focus groups combined participants from both groups. Students not available for face-to-face interviews participated through conference calls, although we did not combine face-to-face and telephone interviews within a given focus group, to avoid the unintentional exclusion of conference call interviewees. Two students who could not participate in the focus groups were interviewed individually. All interviews were audiotaped for future reference.
  • Interviews lasted between 73 and 95 minutes. Participants were informed that the study would not influence their grades or the likelihood of their manuscripts’ acceptance for publication. They were told that the objective of the focus groups was to learn about the challenges they encountered while writing the manuscripts and their strategies for completing the project. We did not conduct pilot interviews; rather, we used open-ended questions for the first interview and subsequently updated it as the contents of each interview were analyzed. Initial open-ended questions focused on (1) factors that made the writing process either easier or more difficult, (2) interaction with the mentor and other peers during the writing process, and (3) specific factors within the participant’s allocated section (e.g., introduction) that posed difficulties or facilitated the process. Because qualitative analyses were performed after every interview, after a time, questions tended to focus more on what seemed to be emerging themes, clarifying them and obtaining further details on how these themes affected participants. After interviewing 14 of the participants, we determined that we had reached a saturation point at which all emerging themes had been extracted and consolidated.12 Despite this, we continued until we had interviewed all 16 participants.



Data analysis

 

  • Interviews were transcribed and read independently four times each by two of us. One of us (R.P.) was trained in qualitative research from his PhD and had previous exposure to phenomenology. The other (A.S.) had previous experience with one qualitative study and participated in study groups discussing methodological aspects of grounded theory as well as ethnographic studies. Each of us independently coded the transcripts following principles of grounded theory.13 After each coding, the coders exchanged files and discussed points of disagreement in a Web conference. Although it was not our primary aim to reach agreement on every portion of code, successive reviews led to greater agreement in coding. Initial categories were converted to major emerging themes, agreed on by both coders. Our initial emerging themes were then respondent-validated by asking all study participants to review the findings. Each emerging theme was accompanied by a brief explanation and anonymous quotes. This comparison led to a few clarifications of meaning for one quote, which was incorporated into our results, though we were careful not to let participants’ individual observations interfere with the emerging themes drawn from data obtained from the group as a whole. We considered respondent validation an error-reducing measure rather than a strict validation. We triangulated our results by discussing the emerging themes in an online forum with five specialists in college writing education. Triangulation was used not to generate hypotheses about emerging themes but to validate them once they had been found. Rather than an attempt to achieve consensus, our aim in triangulation was to increase the comprehensiveness and reflexivity of our analysis. (Reflexivity acknowledges a researcher’s contribution into the construction of meaning in a qualitative study by highlighting his or her assumptions and values that might influence the interview. It helps in ensuring that both data collection and interpretation are well within the premises of the researcher’s knowledge.14) Hence, not all suggestions from these two sources (i.e., respondent validation and triangulation) were taken into account, and we did not use any further methods to achieve consensus. We also described negative cases in which emerging themes seemed not to be in complete agreement with outlier observations.
  • To provide adequate reflexivity regarding our analysis, we describe ourselves below. All of us are clinical researchers with prior experience mentoring novice researchers. None of us sponsor any particular educational school of thought, and none of us had strong preexisting opinions about the themes that would emerge from this qualitative analysis. Each of us, however, to a greater or lesser degree, had had experiences during our research careers that reflected the emerging themes described in our study.
  • This study received approval from Duke University’s institutional review board. Informed consent was obtained from all participants before participation.



    • Cognitive burden: The participants differed greatly in their perceptions and management of the writing task.
    • Group support and mentoring: Most of the respondents were open to, and even in favor of, the idea of group writing. This was reflected in responses that favored group loyalty—responsibility, comfort zone, and encouragement. The responses point toward the role of colleagues, friends, and mentors in aiding the writing task
    • The role of mentors in guiding, encouraging, and supporting novice researchers was also substantial. Many researchers looked to mentors for support and reassurance.
    • Difficulty in distinguishing between content and structure: Many participants’ reflections regarding the distinction between content and structure revealed initially diverse views that converged to agreement. Slow yet significant steps were taken toward overcoming initial difficulties, understanding assigned roles, and drawing on similar past experiences.
    • Backward design of manuscript: For some participants, comprehending the overall perspective of the manuscript was a turning point, whereas others lost focus when they began to write. Those participants who were able to have the overall perspective and visualize the completed manuscript were then able to work backward from that goal to plan and implement the steps of writing the manuscript, hence the theme “backward design of manuscript.”
    • Negative cases: Some responses highlighted critical aspects of the study that needed to be addressed. Missing important data could lead to an inaccurate article, and plagiarism was perceived as a serious threat.




  • Making the distinction between structure and content is crucial.
  • Awareness of structure in scientific articles affects readers’ reactions and feedback.23
  • Visualizing the completed manuscript and working backward from that goal to devise a series of manageable intermediate steps is crucial to the scientific writing process, as explained by Wiggins and McTighe.25 The backward design method has been credited to be beneficial in writing logically organized research papers.26




 2009 Apr;84(4):511-6. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31819a8c3c.

Scientific writing of novice researchers: what difficulties and encouragements do they encounter?

Abstract

PURPOSE:

Writing scientific articles is a daunting task for novice researchers. In this qualitative study carried out in 2007, the authors evaluated the experiences of a group of novice researchers engaged in the writing process, to elucidate the main difficulties and sources of encouragement they encountered.

METHOD:

Sixteen novice researchers were interviewed. Most were women (10), and most were enrolled in programs of medicine (9), followed by nursing (4) and physical therapy (3). These were drawn via convenience sampling from a randomized control trial in which 48 of them were equally assigned to either an online or a face-to-face course of instruction. On completion, interviews were conducted in focus groups of four students each. The interviews were transcribed and read independently by two of the authors, who then encoded the material based on the principles of grounded theory. Initial categories were converted to major emerging themes, which were validated when participants were asked to review the findings. Triangulation of results was carried out by discussing the emerging themes in an online forum with five specialists in college writing education.

RESULTS:

Classifying the diverse responses of participants led to the emergence of four major themes: cognitive burden, group support and mentoring, difficulty in distinguishing between content and structure, and backward design of manuscripts.

CONCLUSIONS:

The themes produced by this study provide some insight into the challenges faced by novice researchers in their early attempts atscientific writing. Remedies that address these challenges are needed to substantially improve scientific writing instruction.

PMID:

 

19318791

 

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


최고의 연구중심의과대학은? - 의과대학의 연구역량 평가를 위한 새로운 모델 - 

What Makes a Top Research Medical School? A Call for a New Model to Evaluate Academic Physicians and Medical School Performance

Matthew J. Goldstein, MD, PhD, Mitchell R. Lunn, MD, and Lily Peng, MD, PhD



1910년 플렉스너 보고서가 나온 이후, 의학교육은 학생들에게 교육과 임상실습의 최저기준을 충족시키기 위한 많은 변화를 겪어왔다.면허발급기관과 인증기관이 의학교육의 질을 높이고자 하는 많은 노력을 해왔음에도, 최고의 진료를 할 수 있는 교육, 최고의 연구를 할 수 있는 교육이 어떤 것인지에 대해서 병확히 밝혀진 바는 없다. 비교분석연구(Comparative analysis)는 의과대학간의 차이를 이해하기 위한 강력한 도구이나 수행하기 쉽지 않다. 그 결과 U.S. News & World Report (USN&WR)에서 수행하는 분석이 미국 의과대학 간 비교의 기본이 되어버렸다. 의학교육자들은 좀 더 강력하고 공정한 접근법을 개발할 필요가 있으며, 이를 통해 각 의과대학의 수행능력을 보다 잘 이해할 필요가 있다. 특히 성공적으로 의사연구자를 양성해온 의과대학에 대한 더 깊은 이해와 철저한 평가가 필요하다. 

Since the publication of the Flexner Report in 1910, the medical education enterprise has undergone many changes to ensure that medical schools meet a minimum standard for the curricula and clinical training they offer students. Although the efforts of the licensing and accrediting bodies have raised the quality of medical education, the educational processes that produce the physicians who provide the best patient care and conduct the best biomedical research have not been identified. Comparative analyses are powerful tools to understand the differences between institutions, but they are challenging to carry out. As a result, the analysis performed by U.S. News & World Report (USN&WR) has become the default tool to compare U.S. medical schools. Medical educators must explore more rigorous and equitable approaches to analyze and understand the performance of medical schools. In particular, a better understanding and more thorough evaluation of the most successful institutions in producing academic physicians with biomedical research careers are needed. 


이 Perspective에서 저자들은 기초, 임상, 중개, 적용(basic, clinical, translational, and implementation) 연구를 포괄한 의과대학의 의사연구자 양성을 평가하는 새로운 모델을 제시하고자 한다. 이 모델은 접근가능한 객관적 관련 준거를 활용함으로써 USN&WR에서 사용된 주관적 준거를 대체하고자 하였다. 가장 중요한 준거가 무엇인지에 대한 국가적 토론을 촉진하고, 평가기준의 투명성 향상을 통해 궁극적으로 교육의 질 향상을 바란다. 

In this Perspective, the authors present a new model to evaluate medical schools' production of academic physicians who advance medicine through basic, clinical, translational, and implementation science research. This model is based on relevant and accessible objective criteria that should replace the subjective criteria used in the current USN&WR rankings system. By fostering a national discussion about the most meaningful criteria that should be measured and reported, the authors hope to increase transparency of assessment standards and ultimately improve educational quality.






  • In their 1977 study of medical school faculty, Cole and Lipton2 reported on both the objective and subjective nature of rankings, noting that “research and publication, eminence of faculty, training and research grants available, size of full-time faculty, and perceived effectiveness of training” all correlated with perceived quality (i.e., reputation). They found that although reputation is partially linked to institutional performance, “there is some evidence of a ceiling effect (Harvard) and a halo effect for schools affiliated with universities having national reputations.”


  • In baseball, the traditional system was perceived to be correct on the basis of a rationally congruent approach, where a player’s apparent skills determined his worth, but using statistical data has proven to be a better method of determining why teams win and lose


  • The most recognized modern comparative analysis of medical schools is performed and published by U.S. News & World Report (USN&WR).5 However, USN&WR relies heavily on subjective and premedical student performance measures
  • Although the USN&WR evaluation method has undergone numerous changes, it remains subjective and limited. Importantly, USN&WR’s objective criteria evaluate the quality of matriculating students rather than assessing the value added by undergraduate medical education.


  • Unfortunately, extant assessments have not provided parallel objective measures of medical school education in the United States.


  • In our model’s scoring system, each physician was given a score that incorporated data from four primary categories: 
    • publications, grants, clinical trials, and awards/honors. We obtained these data from..
      • MEDLINE (publication record), 
      • the NIH’s RePORTER (grant record), 
      • ClinicalTrials.gov (clinical trial record), and 
      • 37 official award rosters (honors and awards).



  • Scoring system
    • We assigned physicians one, two, or three points for each journal article published. Using the eigenfactor ranking system (www.eigenfactor.org), articles published in the top 1,000 journals that had an eigenfactor x ≥ 0.2 were assigned three points; 0.2 > x ≥ 0.1 were assigned two points; and x < 0.1 were assigned one point. The eigenfactor score, compared with the Thomson Reuters impact factor, more fairly assesses impact, with highly cited journals having more influence than lesser-cited journals, and corrects for self-citation.



  • Score calculations
    • In Table 2, we report the descriptive statistics for these four categorical scores for all U.S. medical school graduates. We capped each categorical score at the 99.9th percentile to limit the influence that outliers would have on the results and to ensure that the schools, which consistently produce successful academic physicians, are ranked higher than the schools that produce a small number ofhigh-performing individuals.  


  • The University of 
  • California, San Francisco, School of 
  • Medicine (UCSF) was ranked fourth by 
  • USN&WR, in part because the faculty, 
  • not the graduates, excelled in securing 
  • NIH grants. 
  • Our evaluation of UCSF graduates, however, placed the school at 17 because its graduates achieved fewer and lower-impact publications and grants. This finding highlights the important point that the measurement of faculty grants may not reflect the quality of education provided by a given school.


  • In a secondary analysis, we subdivided physicians by graduation decade to assess institutional performance trajectory over time.



  • Institutions without this priority, such as those that focus on creating primary care physicians, would likely be disadvantaged by this modeljust as they are with the USN&WR Best Medical Schools: Research rankings




 2015 Jan 20. [Epub ahead of print]

What Makes a Top Research Medical School? A Call for a New Model to Evaluate Academic Physicians andMedical School Performance.

Abstract

Since the publication of the Flexner Report in 1910, the medical education enterprise has undergone many changes to ensure that medical schools meet a minimum standard for the curricula and clinical training they offer students. Although the efforts of the licensing and accrediting bodies have raised the quality of medical education, the educational processes that produce the physicians who provide the best patient care and conduct the best biomedical research have not been identified. Comparative analyses are powerful tools to understand the differences between institutions, but they are challenging to carry out. As a result, the analysis performed by U.S. News & World Report (USN&WR) has become the default tool to compare U.S. medical schools. Medical educators must explore more rigorous and equitable approaches to analyze and understand the performanceof medical schools. In particular, a better understanding and more thorough evaluation of the most successful institutions in producing academicphysicians with biomedical research careers are needed. In this Perspective, the authors present a new model to evaluate medical schools' production of academic physicians who advance medicine through basic, clinical, translational, and implementation science research. This model is based on relevant and accessible objective criteria that should replace the subjective criteria used in the current USN&WR rankings system. By fostering a national discussion about the most meaningful criteria that should be measured and reported, the authors hope to increase transparency of assessment standards and ultimately improve educational quality.

PMID:

 

25607941

 

[PubMed - as supplied by publisher]


MD–PhD프로그램에서 전통적 생의학/임상의학 이외의 분야를 권장해야 하는가?

Should MD–PhD Programs Encourage Graduate Training in Disciplines Beyond Conventional Biomedical or Clinical Sciences?

Ryan J. O’Mara, MS, Stephen I. Hsu, MD, PhD, and Daniel R. Wilson, MD, PhD







MD–PhD프로그램의 목적은 미래의 생의학연구자로서 독창적 역량을 지닌 의사-과학자의 양성이다. 현재로서는 생의학/임상의학 분야를 제외한 다른 분야의 의사-과학자가 매우 부족한 상황이며, 이는 MD–PhD프로그램에서 통상적이지는 않으나(nontranditional), 건강에 영향을 주는 요인에 매우 근접한(germane) 분야의 박사과정 연구를 허용하거나 더 나아가 적극적으로 권장해야 할 것인가에 대한 문제를 제기한다. 이 문제가 중요한 이유는 대학의학의 궁극적인 목표가 모든 사람들에게 최고의 건강과 건강형평성을 제공하는 것이기 때문이다. 의학과 진료, 의료접근성과 전달체계도 이러한 건강형평성을 향상시키는 데 중요한 것은 사실이나, 그것만으로 건강불평등을 해소하기는 어렵다. 지역사회와 사회 전반에 걸친 복잡한 건강 문제를 해결하기 위해서는 전통적인 생의학/임상과학을 이외의 분야를 다루는 연구자들이 필요하다. 건강형평성의 진정한 발전을 이루기 위해서는 교육과정을 통해서 건강의 거시적 결정요인과 미시적 결정요인 모두에 대한 의사-과학자를 준비해나가야 한다. 저자들은 MD-PhD프로그램에서 비전통적이라 할 수 있는 역학, 통계학, 인류학, 사회학, 윤리학, 공공정책, 경영, 경제, 교육, 사회복지, 정보과학, 정보통신, 마케팅 등의 분야를 허용하고 더 나아가 적극 권장하여야 한다고 주장한다. 현재와 앞으로 다가올 건강요구를 충족시키기 위해서 비전통적분야를 전공하는 MD-PhD학생을 값진 생의학 연구인력으로서 더 반기고 지원하야 할 것이다.


The goal of MD–PhD training programs is to produce physician–scientists with unique capacities to lead the future biomedical research workforce. The current dearth of physician–scientists with expertise outside conventional biomedical or clinical sciences raises the question of whether MD–PhD training programs should allow or even encourage scholars to pursue doctoral studies in disciplines that are deemed nontraditional, yet are intrinsically germane to major influences on health. This question is especially relevant because the central value and ultimate goal of the academic medicine community is to help attain the highest level of health and health equity for all people. Advances in medical science and practice, along with improvements in health care access and delivery, are steps toward health equity, but alone they will not come close to eliminating health inequalities. Addressing the complex health issues in our communities and society as a whole requires a biomedical research workforce with knowledge, practice, and research skills well beyond conventional biomedical or clinical sciences. To make real progress in advancing health equity, educational pathways must prepare physician–scientists to treat both micro and macro determinants of health. The authors argue that MD–PhD programs should allow and encourage their scholars to cross boundaries into less traditional disciplines such as epidemiology, statistics, anthropology, sociology, ethics, public policy, management, economics, education, social work, informatics, communications, and marketing. To fulfill current and coming health care needs, nontraditional MD–PhD students should be welcomed and supported as valuable members of our biomedical research workforce.






  • The greatest obstacles to health equity are disparities in behavioral or environmental risk factors and the social and economic conditions that shape those behaviors and environments.11 People’s health and chances of dying prematurely are influenced far less by the clinical care they receive than by the social conditions— family integrity, housing, neighborhoods, education, employment, and income—in which they live.12 These “upstream” social determinants are too important to health equity for medical leaders to continue ignoring them.


  • Traditional biomedical and clinical sciences cannot effectively address the behavioral, environmental, social, economic, political, cultural, familial, and other nonmedical causes of health inequities.


  • The flagship of MD–PhD program funding—the Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)—offers no specific definition or limitation of graduate scientific training:  
    • MSTP participants may choose from a wide range of research training programs in the biological, chemical, or physical sciences. Other disciplines in which MSTP participants can pursue graduate study include the computer sciences, social and behavioral sciences, economics, epidemiology, public health, bioengineering, biostatistics, and bioethics.16


  • At one leading institution, MD–PhD students training in a biomedical science receive MSTP-supported tuition waivers, medical insurance, and stipends. At that same institution, MD–PhD students training in a social science receive considerably less financial support (through non-MSTP sources).


  • Alternatively, the scarcity of nontraditional MD–PhD scholarship may originate with the students. They may be unaware of opportunities and support for nontraditional graduate training, uncertain of its relevance to their medical careers, or skeptical of its value.


  • Having a rich diversity of scholarship is an important goal of many academic institutions and programs. Diversity of scholarship includes not just 
    • individuals creating new knowledge (discovery) but also 
    • individuals connecting knowledge to other knowledge (integration), 
    • communicating knowledge (teaching), and 
    • making knowledge accessible and useable (application).18






 2015 Feb;90(2):161-4. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000540.

Should MD-PhD Programs Encourage Graduate Training in Disciplines Beyond Conventional Biomedical orClinical Sciences?

Abstract

The goal of MD-PhD training programs is to produce physician-scientists with unique capacities to lead the future biomedical research workforce. The current dearth of physician-scientists with expertise outside conventional biomedical or clinical sciences raises the question of whether MD-PhDtraining programs should allow or even encourage scholars to pursue doctoral studies in disciplines that are deemed nontraditional, yet are intrinsically germane to major influences on health. This question is especially relevant because the central value and ultimate goal of the academic medicine community is to help attain the highest level of health and health equity for all people. Advances in medical science and practice, along with improvements in health care access and delivery, are steps toward health equity, but alone they will not come close to eliminating health inequalities. Addressing the complex health issues in our communities and society as a whole requires a biomedical research workforce with knowledge, practice, and research skills well beyond conventional biomedical or clinical sciences. To make real progress in advancing health equity, educational pathways must prepare physician-scientists to treat both micro and macro determinants of health. The authors argue that MD-PhDprograms should allow and encourage their scholars to cross boundaries into less traditional disciplines such as epidemiology, statistics, anthropology, sociology, ethics, public policy, management, economics, education, social work, informatics, communications, and marketing. To fulfill current and coming health care needs, nontraditional MD-PhD students should be welcomed and supported as valuable members of ourbiomedical research workforce.



(출처 : http://www.mayo.edu/research/centers-programs/pediatric-research-center/overview)



소아과학이라는 학문을 발전시켜온 원동력은

'내일의 아이들은 오늘의 아이들보다 건강할 것이다'라는 비전이다. 

그러나 지난 30년간 소아의 질병과 건강에 대해 연구하는 사람은 점차 줄고 있다. 

왜 그럴까?


ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS IS MOTIVATED BY A VISION 

wherein the children of tomorrow are healthier than those of today. 




ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS IS MOTIVATED BY A VISION wherein the children of tomorrow are healthier than those of today. The physician-scientist is uniquely well positioned to create and translate discoveries into care.


Since the 1980s, the percentage of physicians dedicating significant components of a professional life to research has declined from approximately 5%to 1.5%.1


Despite more trainees, the population of physician-scientists is aging and the absolute number is declining.2 In 1980, 25% of research program grants were awarded to physicians older than 50 years, compared with 50% at present.1



Holes in the Pipeline


Decreasing resources for research compromises the research pipeline. 


Federal and foundation dollars are increasingly constrained.



Medical schools and clinical departments seem unwilling or unable to support unfunded research by early-career clinician-scientists.


Requirements for resident and fellow education may further compromise the development of physician-scientists. For example, Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requirements now mandate engagement in “quality assurance” programs and continuity clinics, irrespective of career path


Aspiring physician-scientists are generally at a disadvantage when competing with PhD scientists for grant fundingA research trainee with an MD degree has just 2 years of incompletely protected research training during fellowship. Trainees recognize this competitive disadvantage


The high percentage of women in pediatrics is arguably the most distinctive factor in developing the next generation of physician-scientists. 


Indebtedness is a significant obstacle to the development of physician-scientists.6


Tenure standards that require immediate academic productivity are problematic,7 especially given the compressed research training of most clinician-scientists. The expectations and process for promotion and tenure are often unknown to trainees.


Lack of sufficient institutional infrastructure, including financial resources and mentoring, further dampens enthusiasm for a research career.8 



Proposed Pipeline Patches


To develop physician-scientists, it is imperative that departments, children’s hospitals, and medical schools explicitly acknowledge the importance of physicians with fluency in the language of discovery and the capacity to translate discoveries into clinical medicine. There is no substitute for this recognition. Fundamentally, creation and retention of the next generation of physician-scientists also will require

(1) a respectful and family-friendly workplace that includes flexible work hours, promotion clocks, and family support policies; 

(2) responsibilities that promote a sense of fulfillment and success, with greater than 75% dedicated research time and complementary clinical work; 

(3) promotion tracks that recognize both individual and teambased science; 

and (4) mentorship that is diverse, multigenerational, and multidisciplinary.



Conclusions


Development of the pediatric physician-scientist pathway can be facilitated by relatively straightforward and resource-efficient investments. Motivating even this relatively modest investment demands explicit acknowledgment of the value of the clinician-scientist. Children will be well-served when more children’s hospitals and pediatric departmental resources are focused on creation, retention,and promotion of the engine that has powered their growth and increasing prominence—ie,physician-scientists creating and translating knowledge into care.








 2013 May 1;309(17):1781-2. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.2258.

Creation and retention of the next generation of physician-scientists for child health research.

Source

Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, 701 Welch Rd, Bldg B, Ste 310, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. cornfield@stanford.edu




Since 1994, the Harvard-wide Pediatric Health Services Research (HSR) Fellowship Program has excelled at training a new generation of investigators whose work is defining and addressing critical gaps in child health services research and the provision of primary care for children. Our training examines key issues such as access, quality, outcomes and cost-effectiveness of care.


(출처 : http://www.childrenshospital.org/cfapps/research/data_admin/Site2231/mainpageS2231P0.html)





소아 연구(Child health research)는 건강과 의료에 관한 지식을 발전시키기 위한 좋은 모델이다. 

소아 연구와 관련한 최근의 문제들로부터 우리는 

소아의 건강과 질병의 변화하는 양상에 어떻게 대처해야 하는지, 

소아의 질병의 영향이 단순한 생존의 문제를 넘어 

장기적으로 어떠한 영향을 미치는지에 대해 생각해 볼 수 있다. 


변화하는 소아 연구의 환경에 대응하기 위해서는 

혁신적인 파트너십이 필요하고, 

소아 연구 분야의 잘 훈련된 연구자들이 필요하며, 

새로 등장하는 기술을 잘 활용할 수 있어야 한다. 


또한 강력한 사회적 힘(societal force)와 연계하여 괴팍한(fractious) 정치적 환경 속에서도 

연구의 우선순위를 어린이들의 이익을 증진시키는 것에 둘 수 있어야 할 것이다.


Child health research at its best provides a model for the advancement of knowledge to improve health and health care. The challenges confronting pediatric research reflect the need to respond to the changing milieu of child health and disease and to look beyond survival to consider the longterm consequences of pediatric health and disease. This transition will require innovative partnerships, a cadre of welltrained investigators interested in child health, and creative use of emerging technologies. It will also require linkage of research priorities to larger societal forces and a renewed commitment to advancing the interests of children in an increasingly fractious policy world.





DESPITE A REMARKABLE RECORD OF ACCOMPLISHments, the pediatric research community faces mounting evidence that the nature and scope of current research are inadequate. The Editorial “Challenges to Excellence in Child Health Research,” by Zylke et al,1 casts this paradox in sharp relief by summarizing a series of articles suggesting that the quality and number of pediatric research studies lag behind research focused on adults.


A variety of technical challenges specific to child health research have been identified.2,3 Of central concern is the relative rarity of serious child health problems, which reflects the success of prior research and public health interventions to reduce traditional threats of acute, infectious diseases. 


Moreover, improved medical and surgical therapies have transformed important conditions that were once fatal in early childhood into more manageable chronic conditions. However, for many chronic childhood illnesses, etiology is still unclear and therapies are suboptimal.


The shift in the epidemiology of childhood illness away from acute infectious diseases to chronic illness and acute injury highlights the need to develop novel research strategies. 



Currently funded pediatric research networks could provide a strong foundation for expanded collaborative protocols

For example, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network could be enhanced by expansion of clinical sites and longer-term outcome studies.4


Although this technical guidance is helpful, the true promise of this effort will be its ability to generate functioning, international collaborations and the financial support such initiatives require. Moreover, the expansion of electronic health records and the development of bioinformatics to integrate health information and biologic specimens create an environment in which every patient is a potential research participant and each can benefit from the contributions of others


At the same time, a continual pipeline of young basic, clinical, and public health scientists interested in advancing child health is needed.


Excellent examples of successful public and private programs that should be expanded include the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Pediatric Scientist Development Program, the Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program, and training programs associated with the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards.



The transition in child health research must also confront the powerful influence of market forces in shaping research priorities

Although private sector contributions to pediatric research remain important, these investments are dwarfed by funding dedicated to adult diseases. 


Government initiatives (ie, the Orphan Drug Act, the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, and the Pediatric Research Equity Act) have provided special financial or regulatory incentives to develop pediatric drugs and devices for small or orphan markets.7


New perspectives about pediatric origins of adult disease, social determinants of health, and long-term effects of early exposures and interactions suggest that the poor health of children (reflected in rates of prematurity, obesity, behavioral and developmental problems, etc) can be a harbinger of poor adult health.8


Collaboration will be central to strengthening child health research, with openness to unique partnerships. For example,improvements in child health are important to the health insurance industry.


In large measure, health policy is now synonymous with cost containment and when cost containment becomes the focus, child health issues are quickly marginalized


Pediatric and other community leaders need to continue to push an agenda for children that includes attention to child health research. Children are the poorest segment of US society and have a limited political voice. Moreover, poverty has never been more heavily concentrated in childhood than it is today.


Child health research at its best provides a model for the advancement of knowledge to improve health and health care. The challenges confronting pediatric research reflect the need to respond to the changing milieu of child health and disease and to look beyond survival to consider the longterm consequences of pediatric health and disease. This transition will require innovative partnerships, a cadre of welltrained investigators interested in child health, and creative use of emerging technologies. It will also require linkage of research priorities to larger societal forces and a renewed commitment to advancing the interests of children in an increasingly fractious policy world.




 2013 May 1;309(17):1779-80. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.3257.

The transformation of child health researchinnovation, market failure, and the public good.

Source

Department of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine and Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, 2015 Uppergate Dr, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA. barbara_stoll@oz.ped.emory.edu

PMID:

 

23632719

 

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]











(출처 : http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080611/full/453840a.html)







현격한 발전에도 불구하고, 기초과학 연구결과를 임상 현장에 적용하는 것은 아직도 상당한 난관인데, 지식의 발견으로부터 환자 진료의 기준으로 자리잡는 데 까지 걸리는 시간은 15~20년 정도라고 알려져 있다.

Despite extensive advancements, translating science into clinical practice remains a challenge as evidenced by the 15- to 20-year gap between development of new knowledge and established standards for patient care.1


그렇지만 의사-과학자를 양성하는 것은 독립적인 연구자로서 키우는 과정이 점차 더 경쟁이 심해지고 불확실성이 높아지면서 예전보다도 더욱  길고 지루한 과정이 되었다. 의사-과학자는 일반적으로 학위를 받고 7년에서 9년이 지나서야 NIH의 진로 발전 기금(career development awards)를 받게 되는데, 이는 일반 PhD 들이 학위 수여 후 3년에서 5년에 받는 것에 비하면 무척 느린 것이다.

However, the trajectory for physician–scientists has become increasingly arduous and lengthy as the process for becoming an independent investigator has become more competitive and uncertain.2 Physician–scientists generally apply for NIH career development awards seven to nine years after receiving their degrees, in contrast to their PhD counterparts, who apply between three to five years post degree.


게다가 그 R01 기금을 받게 되는 평균 연령도 40대가 되었다.

In addition, the average age of awardees receiving their first R01 is now in the 40s.3


의사-과학자는 기존의 레지던트 과정에서 연구 커리어를 새로 시작해나가야 하는 상황에 마주치는데, 의사-과학자를 키우는 통합된 프로그램도 없고, 레지던트 기간동안의 이러한 진로 개발 수요에 대해 신경을 쓰지않는 상황에서는 독립적인 연구자가 되는 것은 더 지연될 수 밖에 없다. 또한 능력있는 과학자가 될 수 있는 사람들이 다른 진로를 선택할 가능성마저 높아진다.

Moreover, physician–scientists are often faced with having to restart their research careers in the context of traditional residency programs. Lack of integration and attention to the unique developmental needs of these physicians during residency contributes to significant delays in attaining independence and increases the risk that talented scientists will choose other career paths


이러한 상황에 대해 콜럼비아의 정신과 레지던트 수련 과정에서는 정식적인 연구트렉 프로그램을 (RTP) 만들어서 중개연구 분야의 연구에 관심이 있고 경험을 쌓고자 하는 레지던트들의 준비 과정을 도와주고자 하였다.

In response, Columbia’s Residency Training Program in Psychiatry developed a formalized Research Track Program (RTP) to better support and prepare residents with demonstrated interest and experience in research for careers in translational and clinical research.


직접 연구에 대한 경험을 쌓는 것은 연구에 대한 역량과 자신감을 쌓는데 중요하다. 하지만 레지던트 기간의 제한된 시간은 종종 임상 수련 요건에만 따라 분절되어서 연구에 집중할 기회를 주지 않는다. 어느 정도의 유연성이 있는, 통합된 프로그램이 있어야 연구와 임상 목표가 서로가 서로를 해하지 않고 부드럽게 연계될 수 있을 것이다.

Hands-on research experience fosters competence and confidence critical to stoking and maintaining interest in research.7 However, protected time within residency training is often fragmented by clinical training requirements, limiting the opportunity to develop or cultivate a research focus.5,8 A consolidated structure that allows flexibility may foster a seamless integration of research and clinical goals, without compromising one for the other.


멘터링은 과학자로서의 훈련 과정에 필수적일 뿐만 아니라, 아카데미아에서 확실한 발전을 이뤄가는 과정에 반드시 필요한 것이다. 생의학에 관한 연구나 행동과학 연구의 결과에 따르면 성공한, 독립적인 연구자일수록 더욱 확장된(extended) 멘토링을 받은 것으로 되어 있다. 이런 것은 특히 여성이나 소수인종(minorities)일 경우에 더욱 그렇다.

Mentorship is not only a crucial part of training for scientists but also perhaps the single most important element in securing progression in academia.9,10 Studies in biomedical and behavioral research in general, and in mental health and psychiatry in particular, have demonstrated that individuals who become successful, independent investigators are more likely to have had extended mentoring.9 This is especially true for women and minorities.11


기초과학 훈련을 받는 동안 임상 연구에 일찍 노출되는 것은 중개연구에 대한 아이디어를 더 촉진시켜준다. 이런 경험은 입원 환자를 대상으로 한 연구를 직접 실습 해 봄으로서 얻을 수 있다. 연구 프로토콜에 들어오기 전, 연구 과정, 연구 과정 후의 환자를 매일매일의 관리해보는 경험을 통해서 레지던트들은 임상 스킬을 익힐 수 있다. RTR(Research Track Resident, 연구 트렉 레지던트)은 임상 시험 프로토콜을 공부하고, 그 경험을 직접 쌓음으로서 연구를 디자인 하는 법을 배울 수 있다.

Early exposure to clinical research is key to stimulating ideas for translational research among basic science trainees.

This is provided through clinical rotations on inpatient research services. While participating in clinical day-to-day management of patients before, during, and after their participation in research protocols, residents develop their clinical skills. Simultaneously, RTRs learn about research design by studying active clinical protocols and gain firsthand experience in their execution.


경제적 어려움은 연구 커리어를 쌓는 것에 있어서 중대한 장애물이다. 2002년부터의 데이터에 따르면 80%이상의 의대생들이 평균적으로 104,000달러의 빚을 지고 있으며, 연구 펠로우십을 하고 있는 레지던트들은 그렇지 않은 동료들에 비해서 수입이 더 적다고 한다. 게다가 이런 상황은 연구를 계속 하기 위해서는 반드시 필요한 미래의 연구비 대한 불확실성 때문에 더욱 심각해진다.

Financial strain is also a significant impediment to pursuing a research career. Data from 2002 indicate that over 80% of medical students have loans with an average debt of $104,000.8 On graduation, residents committing to research fellowship training are faced with a reduced income compared with their peers. As an example, 2012 T32 stipends for fourth- through seventh year fellows range between $47,820 and $54,180,16 in contrast to a median annual salary of $154,500 for beginning psychiatrists in 2011 according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.17 This is compounded by the uncertainty of future grant funding necessary to sustain research endeavors.


비록 RTP가 정신과 레지던트를 위해서 개발되긴 했지만, 핵심적 요소는 임상과에 상관없이 적용 가능하다. 최근 소아과 레지던트를 대상으로 한 조사에서 연구를 할지 말지 결정하는 것에 영향을 주는 가장 흔한 요소는 시간과, 멘토쉽과 기회라는 응답이 나왔다.

Although this RTP has been developed for a psychiatry residency, the key components are likely applicable across disciplines. In a recent survey of pediatric residents, the most commonly identified influences on the decision to conduct research during residency training included the availability of time, mentorship, and opportunity.20 


유사하게 가정의학과의 연구 프로그램 중에서도 성공적인 프로그램은 연구를 할 시간, 교수들의 참여, 연구 교과과정, 전문적인 지원, 그리고 연구를 직접 해볼 기회가 더 많았다고 보고되어 있다.

Similarly, a review of research programs within family medicine training noted that successful programs combined time for research, faculty involvement, a research curriculum, professional support, and opportunities for presenting research.10


이러한 프로그램의 핵심 요건은 훈련받는 사람들, 특히 MD/PhD들이 NIMH의 목표인 "pipeline"을 확대하는 것에 맞추어 연구 분야에 계속 남아 과학적 도전을 계속 이어나가는 것이다. 

The key goal of this program is to enhance the likelihood that trainees, especially MD/PhDs, will stay in research and tackle vexing scientific challenges facing psychiatry, in line with NIMH goals of augmenting the “pipeline.”21


기본적으로 연구 훈련과정은 자원이 많이 드는 사업이다. 연구자들이 연구비를 따고 각 과에 추가적인 수입을 보전해 줄 때까지 오랜 시간이 걸린다. 그럼에도 이것의 핵심은 trainee들에게 시간과 돈을 투자하는 것이다.

Fundamentally, research training is a resource-intensive enterprise. It can pay back over time as researchers obtain grants and bring additional income to the department. However, at its core, it requires investment in trainees, with both money and time


가장 좋은 성과를 올리고 있는 프로그램은 구체적인 연구 커리큘럼 내에서 연구에 대한 시간을 확실하게 확보해주는 프로그램이고, 연구를 할 수 있는 기회를 주고, 연구에 대한 굳건한 기대를 하는 프로그램들이다. 따라서 RTP를 개발하는 것은 연구에 고관심을 가지고 있는 의대생들을 모집하는데 매우 중요하다. 


"길이 생기면, 사람이 다닐 것이다."

Programs with the best track record in recruiting trainees who pursue research careers are those that provide protected time for research within a specific research curriculum and have concrete expectations and opportunities to present research.10,22 Thus, developing a RTP is an important step toward recruiting research-oriented medical students. As noted by others, “If you build it, they will come.”2












 2013 Jun;88(6):759-765.

Bridging the Gap: Supporting Translational Research Careers Through an Integrated Research Track Within Residency Training.

Source

Dr. Arbuckle is associate professor of clinical psychiatry and associate director of residency training, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center and New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, New York. Dr. Gordon is associate professor and director of neuroscience education within residency training, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center and New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, New York. Dr. Pincus is professor and vice chair for strategic initiatives, Department of Psychiatry, and codirector, Irving Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Columbia University, New York, New York; director of quality and outcomes research, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York; and senior scientist, RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Dr. Oquendo is professor of clinical psychiatry and vice chair for education, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center and New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, New York.

Abstract

In the setting of traditional residency training programs, physician-scientists are often limited in their ability to pursue research training goals while meeting clinical training requirements. This creates a gap in research training at a critical developmental stage. In response, Columbia University Medical Center's Department of Psychiatry, in partnership with the New York State Psychiatric Institute, has created a formal Research Track Program (RTP) for psychiatry residents so that interested individuals can maintain their attention on research training during formative residency years. Clinical and research training are integrated through core clinical rotations on research units. With protected research time and clear developmental milestones for each year of training, the RTP allows research track residents to meet both clinical and research training goals while maintaining a healthy work-life balance. In coordination with existing postdoctoral research fellowship programs, research track residents can effectively jump-start fellowship training with advanced course work and consistent, continuous mentorship bridging residency and fellowship years. A key element of the program is its provision of core training in research literacy and extensive research opportunities for all residents, stimulating research interest across the whole residency program. Supported by the National Institutes of Health and a private foundation, this RTP capitalizes on a unique academic-private partnership to address many of the challenges facing physician-scientists. By integrating clinical and research exposures and offering protected research time, careful mentoring, and financial resources, the program aims to further the development of those most poised to establish careers in translational research.

PMID:

 

23619070

 

[PubMed - as supplied by publisher]







+ Recent posts