Search

Clinician-scientists are physicians with training in both clinical medicine and research that enables them to occupy a unique niche as specialists in basic and translational biomedical research. While there is widespread acknowledgement of the importance of clinician-scientists in today's landscape of evidence-based medical practice, training of clinician-scientists in Canada has been on the decline, with fewer opportunities to obtain funding. With the increasing length of training and lower financial compensation, fewer medical graduates are choosing to pursue such a career. MD-PhD programs, in which trainees receive both medical and research training, have the potential to be an important tool in training the next generation of clinician-scientists; however, MD-PhD trainees in Canada face barriers that include an increase in medical school tuition and a decrease in the amount of financial support. We examined the available data on MD-PhD training in Canada and identified a lack of oversight, a lack of funding and poor mentorship as barriers experienced by MD-PhD trainees. Specific recommendations are provided to begin the process of addressing these challenges, starting with the establishment of an overseeing national body that would track long-term outcome data for MD-PhD trainees. This national body could then function to implement best practices from individual programs across the country and to provide further mentorship and support for early-career physician-scientists. MD-PhD programs have the potential to address Canada's growing shortage of clinician-scientists, and strengthening MD-PhD programs will help to effect positive change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Clinician Investigator Trainee Association of Canada/ Association des clinicienschercheurs en formation du Canada (CITAC/ACCFC) represents the interests of clinician-investigator (CI) trainees across Canada. To better advocate for the successful training of CI trainees in Canada, CITAC/ACCFC conducted a survey to assess satisfaction with their training and to find what factors were most associated with satisfaction level. Methods: A nominal scale-based psychometric survey was conducted online in 2009 on CI trainees in Canada (including MD/MSc, MD/PhD, or CIP/SSP). One hundred fifteen out of a target population of approximately 350-400 responded. Survey respondents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction in four areas: 1) quality of training, 2) financial support, 3) mentorship satisfaction and 4) program structure. Ratings in these four areas were also combined to produce a measure of overall satisfaction. Results: At least half of the respondents were 'completely satisfied' in each of the fourcategories other than mentorship. While 98% of respondents considered mentorship as important to their success, 62% expressed some level of dissatisfaction with the level of mentorship received. Moreover, increased levels of mentorship were strongly associated with increased levels of overall satisfaction. Conclusion: The discrepancy between CI trainees' perceived importance of mentorship and the level of satisfaction in mentorship received reveals a strategic area where CI training should be improved. Recognizing that good mentorship in a CI training program offen begins with one's research supervisor, the CITAC/ACCFC has compiled six specific recommendations for finding a good supervisor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]