Long-term Graduate Outcomes of the First Integrated Bachelor of Medicine (MB)/Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) Programme in Europe
Pillay, A. M.; Dennis, H.; Semple, R. K.; Marciniak, S. J.; Peters, D. K.; COX, T. M.
Show abstract
BackgroundThe Cambridge Bachelor of Medicine (MB)/Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) programme was established in 1989 as Europes first integrated clinical -doctoral research training programme. Here we evaluate long-term outcomes of the programme 36 years after its introduction. MethodsTo track mature career choices, research productivity, group leader and senior authorship status, we analysed the career outcomes of graduates enrolling on the programme between 1989 and 2014. This was accomplished by scrutinising institutional pages, LinkedIn, ResearchGate, Google Scholar, and PubMed profiles of MB/PhD programme alumni. ResultsWe obtained data for 166 of 183 programme alumni (91%) who enrolled between 1989 and 2014, with a median follow up of 16 years. Among graduates, 139 (84%) remain in clinical practice and 27 (16%) transitioned to non-clinical careers. Clinical graduates entered medical (81%) and surgical (19%) specialties, with neurology and medical oncology most frequently chosen among the medical specialties. Neurosurgery and ophthalmology were the most favoured surgical specialties chosen. Research engagement remains high: 135 graduates (81%) have published research within the last five years and 28 (17%) hold group leadership positions. Of the the graduates no longer in clinical practice, most have taken up positions in industry (59%) and almost one fifth remain in academia. ConclusionsThe Cambridge MB/PhD programme has produced versatile graduates who contribute to the advancement of medicine within its complex professional ecosystem. Active research engagement (81%) and securement of group leadership positions among alumni (17%), attest to the ability of our graduates to sustain academic career choices within the context of contemporary clinical practice. That most graduates also continue to conduct research shows that the original goals of the programme have been met.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Making the Match or Breaking it? Values, Perceptions, and Obstacles of Trainees Applying into Physician-Scientist Training Programs 95%
- COVIDReady2 Study Protocol: Cross-sectional Survey of Medical Student Volunteering and Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United Kingdom 94%
- Evaluating the inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer-related content in graduate medical education: a national survey of program directors 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Systematic Examination of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) Usage Guidelines for Scholarly Publishing in Medical Journals 91%
- Checklists to Detect Potential Predatory Biomedical Journals: A Systematic Review 88%
- Describing the population experiencing COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough following second vaccination in England: A cohort study from OpenSAFELY 88%
Similar papers in this journal
- For-Profit Growth and Academic Decline: A Retrospective Nationwide Assessment of Brazilian Medical Schools 90%
- Prevalence of Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection and vaccination in Irish Hospital Healthcare Workers; changing epidemiology as the pandemic progresses 87%
- Comparing COVID-19 and influenza presentation and trajectory 87%
Similar papers in this journal
- Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open-access publishing each year 93%
- Sunshine on KOL : a retrospective study about financial ties between medical key opinion leaders and pharmaceutical industry in France 92%
- Calculated grades, predicted grades, forecasted grades and actual A-level grades: Reliability, correlations and predictive validity in medical school applicants, undergraduates, and postgraduates in a time of COVID-19 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.