W.P. Bensken is a postbaccalaureate fellow, Medical Education Unit, Office of the Clinical Director, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. A. Nath is clinical director and senior investigator, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. J.D. Heiss is chair and residency program director, Surgical Neurology Branch, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. O.I. Khan is director, Medical Education Unit, and fellowship program director, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Acad Med. 2019 May;94(5):659-663. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002581.
In academic medicine, the attrition of the physician-scientist workforce has been significantly discussed for the past three decades, with substantial attention and funding targeted to stop this attrition and attempt to reinvigorate the workforce. Despite these concerns and efforts, the attrition has not been stopped or even significantly slowed, and thus a further understanding of the physician-scientist workforce is needed with a closer look at how this workforce is measured and quantified. Through reviewing three methods by which physician-scientists are identified and understood, limitations in these definitions arise, leading to the basic question: Who qualifies to be a physician-scientist? Answering this question may lead to developing more comprehensive and less restrictive approaches when qualifying and measuring the physician-scientist workforce and appreciating the varying contributions physicians make to research. Through suggesting an expanded appreciation of these research contributions, recognition of collaboration, and funding models that support both of these aspects, the authors hope to add to the conversation by challenging traditional approaches and encouraging movement toward forward-looking definitions that encourage and promote all physicians to engage with research. This reimagining of physician-scientists will result not just in a remeasuring of the workforce but, subsequently, in strengthening the clinical and translational research continuum as well.
在学术医学领域,过去三十年来,医生科学家劳动力的损耗一直受到广泛讨论,大量的关注和资金都被投入到阻止这种损耗并试图重振劳动力上。尽管存在这些担忧和努力,但损耗并没有被阻止,甚至没有明显减缓,因此需要更深入地了解医生科学家劳动力,并更仔细地研究如何衡量和量化这一劳动力。通过回顾三种识别和理解医生科学家的方法,这些定义存在局限性,从而引出了一个基本问题:谁有资格成为医生科学家?回答这个问题可能会导致在确定和衡量医生科学家劳动力时采用更全面、限制更少的方法,并欣赏医生对研究做出的不同贡献。通过建议更广泛地认识这些研究贡献,承认合作,并支持这两个方面的资助模式,作者希望通过挑战传统方法并鼓励朝着鼓励和促进所有医生参与研究的前瞻性定义前进来为对话做出贡献。这种对医生科学家的重新构想不仅将重新衡量劳动力,而且随后还将加强临床和转化研究的连续性。