5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      What are the chances? Clinician scientist` career pathways in Germany

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Germany faces a lack of clinician scientists. This problem is widely acknowledged, not just in Germany, as clinician scientists are crucial for medical translation and innovation: trained in medical practice and research they are capable of translating scientific problems into clinical application and vice versa, clinical problems into research. The implementation of nationwide clinician scientist programs (CSPs) in Germany is supposed to solve the lack of trained clinician scientists and, as consequence, to improve the translational relationship between biomedical research and clinical practice. Against the backdrop of an increasing number of CSPs, our study provides early insights into their effectiveness with a focus on what it means to become a clinician scientist and to establish a subsequent career path as a clinician scientist in Germany.

          Methods

          During a research project that was conducted from 2020 to 2023 and funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, we studied thirteen CSPs. We developed a qualitative questionnaire and interviewed 36 clinician scientists in training, their program supervisors, as well as policy stakeholders. The goal of the interviews was to identify the key obstacles in establishing a career path for clinician scientists in Germany.

          Results

          We found three types of challenges for establishing and ensuring long term career paths for clinician scientists: First, local working conditions need to allow for clinician scientists to create and perform tasks that combine research, teaching, patient care and translation synergistically. Protection from the urgency of patient care and from metrics-based performance measures both in the clinic and in research seem key here. Second, a stable career path requires new target positions besides clinic management and senior residency. Third, there is a need for cultural change within university medicine that recognizes and rewards new translation-focused practices.

          Conclusion

          We find that CSPs improve working conditions for the duration of the program and provide protected time for doing research. After the programs, however, the career paths remain unstable, mainly due to a lack of target positions for clinician scientists. CSPs support the initial development of the clinician scientist’ role, but not in a sustainable way, because the separation of research and patient care is stabilized on an institutional and systemic level. The tasks clinician scientists perform in research remain separate from patient care and teaching, thus, limiting their translational potential. In order to remain a clinician scientist within this differentiated system of university medicine, clinician scientists have to do a significant amount of extra work.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-023-04584-8.

          Related collections

          Most cited references10

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          What will it take? Pathways, time and funding: Australian medical students’ perspective on clinician-scientist training

          Background Clinician-scientists are in decline worldwide. They represent a unique niche in medicine by bridging the gap between scientific discovery and patient care. A national, integrated approach to training clinician-scientists, typically programs that comprise a comprehensive MD-PhD pathway, are customary. Such a pathway is lacking in Australia. The objective was to gather perceptions from Australian medical students on factors they perceive would influence their decision to pursue clinician-scientist training. Methods A cross-sectional mixed methods design used quantitative and qualitative questions in an online self-report survey with medical students from a four-year MD program. Quantitative measures comprised scaled response questions regarding prior experience and current involvement in research, and short- and long-term opinions about factors that influence their decisions to undertake a research higher degree (RHD) during medical school. Qualitative questions gathered broader perceptions of what a career pathway as a clinician-scientist would include and what factors are most conducive to a medical student’s commitment to MD-PhD training. Results Respondents (N = 418; 51% female) indicated Time, Funding and Pathway as the major themes arising from the qualitative data, highlighting negative perceptions rather than possible benefits to RHD training. The lack of an evident Pathway was inter-related to Time and Funding. Themes were supported by the quantitative data. Sixty percent of students have previous research experience of varying forms, and 90% report a current interest, mainly to improve their career prospects. Conclusions The data emphasise the need for an MD-PhD pathway in Australia. A model that provides an early, integrated, and exclusive approach to research training pathways across all stages of medical education is suggested as the best way to rejuvenate the clinician-scientist. A national pathway that addresses factors influencing career decision making throughout the medical education continuum should include an appropriate funding structure, and provide early and continuing advice and mentoring. It should be flexible, gender equitable, and include post-graduate training. The implications of implementing MD-PhD programs represent a substantial investment. However this should not be a deterrent to Australia’s commitment to an MD-PhD pathway, but rather a challenge to help ensure our future healthcare is guided by highly trained and competent clinician-scientists.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Canadian clinician-scientist training program must be reinstated.

            Clinical investigators within the Canadian and international communities were shocked when the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) announced that their funding for the MD/PhD program would be terminated after the 2015-2016 academic year. The program has trained Canadian clinician-scientists for more than two decades. The cancellation of the program is at odds with the CIHR's mandate, which stresses the translation of new knowledge into improved health for Canadians, as well as with a series of internal reports that have recommended expanding the program. Although substantial evidence supports the analogous Medical Scientist Training Program in the United States, no parallel analysis of the MD/PhD program has been performed in Canada. Here, we highlight the long-term consequences of the program's cancellation in the context of increased emphasis on translational research. We argue that alternative funding sources cannot ensure continuous support for students in clinician-scientist training programs and that platform funding of the MD/PhD program is necessary to ensure leadership in translational research.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Factors influencing career progress for early stage clinician-scientists in emerging Asian academic medical centres: a qualitative study in Singapore

              Objectives To explore the factors that influence career progress for early stage clinician-scientists and to identify ways to mitigate these factors in the context of emerging Asian academic medical centres (AMCs). Design Qualitative interviews and thematic data analysis based on grounded theory. Setting and participants Five focus group interviews comprising 29 early career clinician-scientists who have received their first national-level career development award in Singapore. Results Clinical priorities represented an overarching concern with many reporting the difficulty in delineating responsibilities between clinical care and research. Additionally, there was a prevailing perception of the lack of support for research at the institutional level. Participants tended to identify mentors through their own efforts in a relatively haphazard manner, often owing to the dearth of role models and perceived inadequacy of reward systems for mentoring. Support from mentors was thought to be limited in terms of targeted scientific guidance and long-term commitments to the relationship. Most of the participants expressed concerns about how they could secure the next level of funding with diminishing confidence. Notably, the work-life balance was neither conceptualised as a ‘barrier’ to successful pursuit of research career nor was it translated into the reason for leaving the dual clinical-research career pathway. Conclusions Results revealed specific limitations presented by the research environment in newly emerging Asian AMCs. To retain a vibrant clinician-scientist workforce, additional measures are needed, aiming to improve institutional culture of research, build mentoring networks, adopt effective tools for tracking career progress and provide a clear and viable career progression path for clinician-scientist. Further research might explore the cross-cultural differences in managing work-life balance in academic medicine.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                barbara.hendriks@hu-berlin.de
                Journal
                BMC Med Educ
                BMC Med Educ
                BMC Medical Education
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6920
                7 September 2023
                7 September 2023
                2023
                : 23
                : 642
                Affiliations
                GRID grid.7468.d, ISNI 0000 0001 2248 7639, Robert K. Merton Center for Science Studies (RMZ) at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, ; Berlin, Germany
                Article
                4584
                10.1186/s12909-023-04584-8
                10486072
                37679714
                daa90ab1-f3b8-4952-953d-c90987ecf71a
                © BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 28 March 2023
                : 11 August 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100002347, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung;
                Award ID: EA4/093/22
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (1034)
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023

                Education
                translational medicine,clinician scientists,clinician scientist programs,research training,translational training

                Comments

                Comment on this article