Integrated MB-PhD training is a long-term investment in the clinician-scientist workforce
Jafree, D. J.; Sun, M.; Stewart, G. W.; Gishen, F.; Swanton, C.; Motallebzadeh, R.; UCL MB-PhD Outcomes Study Group,
Show abstract
Background: Clinician-scientists translate clinical observation into discovery, trials, and policy, yet this workforce is shrinking across health systems worldwide. Integrated MB-PhD training, pausing medical training to complete a PhD before clinical exposure or specialisation, is one route into this career. We aimed to evaluate the long-term value of MB-PhD training and the barriers to clinical-academic careers these face after graduation. Methods: We evaluated all 131 graduates (29.8% female) who entered the University College London (UCL) MB-PhD programme over a 25-year period (1994-2018). Bibliometric outputs were collated via an inter-linked information system. Concurrently, all 131 graduates were invited to respond to open-ended questions on career benefits and structural barriers; 99 (75.6%) responded, and responses were independently coded into themes, which were then reviewed and confirmed by a Study Group of 107 individuals, including the 91 respondents who agreed to participate further. Results: Graduates produced 5,877 publications (1,141 first-author, 819 corresponding-author), attracting 350,754 citations, with a mean relative citation ratio of 3.30 {+/-} 0.47, approximately three times the field average and sustained across three decades of programme entry. Graduates secured an estimated $157.55 million across 99 grants, released 465 public datasets, and were named investigators on 31 clinical trials across five continents. Among the 99 survey respondents, 49.5% held consultant-grade posts, 72.7% remained research-active, and 25.3% had reached senior academic grade. Open-ended responses were coded into five recurring structural barriers, subsequently confirmed by the Study Group: insufficient protected research time (72.2% of responses), unsupportive training structures and limited career opportunities (36.7%, 24.4% of responses), funding and pay barriers (22.2% of responses), and lack of mentorship or geographical/family constraints (14.4%, 13.3% of responses). Conclusions: Integrated MB-PhD training generates sustained academic productivity and leadership, but structural barriers threaten retention of graduates within clinical-academic careers. Protecting research time, stabilising funding and pay, and reducing geographic instability are needed to retain the clinician-scientists that health systems have already invested in training.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical academic research in the time of Corona: a simulation study in England and a call for action 93%
- Dissemination and Stakeholder Engagement Practices Among Dissemination & Implementation Scientists: Results from an Online Survey 93%
- Advancing science or advancing careers? Researchers' opinions on success indicators 92%
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%
- How and why do Quality Circles work for General Practitioners - a realist approach 91%
- Ethnicity and COVID-19 outcomes among healthcare workers in the United Kingdom: UK-REACH ethico-legal research, qualitative research on healthcare workers’ experiences, and stakeholder engagement protocol 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Drug company methodologies used for reporting in the UK pharmaceutical industry payment transparency database between 2015-2019: A content analysis 88%
- Staff experiences and perspectives of delivering an integrated child health and social care service in community settings: A qualitative exploration using the SELFIE framework 87%
- Understanding the influence of leadership, organisation, and policy on delivering an integrated child health and social care service in community settings: A qualitative exploration using the SELFIE framework 87%
Similar papers in this journal
- The Monash Learning Health System Maturity Matrix: Codesign of a Tool to Measure and Guide Improvement in Complex Health System Behaviour 90%
- Healthcare workers experiences of working on the frontline and views about support during COVID-19 and comparable pandemics: A rapid review and meta-synthesis 90%
- ‘Leading from the front’ implementation strategies increase the success of influenza vaccination drives among healthcare workers: A reanalysis of Systematic Review evidence using Intervention Component Analysis (ICA) and Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) 89%
"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.