Department of Brain Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
BMC Med Educ. 2024 Nov 14;24(1):1306. doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-06015-8.
Almost 40% of the Nobel-Prize-winning discoveries in medicine are made by physician-scientists, who are a driving force in the evolving medical, academic and research landscape. However, their training has few defined milestones. To be effective clinicians, educators and researchers, they need to maintain and hone skills, often via continuous professional development (CPD) activities covering different domains. They have recurrently been described as an endangered species. Yet, warnings and recommendations across several decades did not stop the declining number of physician-scientists, which is now a chronic issue. This is further exacerbated by a lack of resources and support, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic.
We administered a questionnaire called Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS-GEN) to get an initial emotional snapshot before performing individual semi-structured interviews with five physician-scientists in neurology working in the United Kingdom. We explored the key factors they balance before selecting CPD activities, along with their views on compulsory CPD events and assessments. We investigated their general feelings towards compulsory and non-compulsory CPD, how they felt the night before and the morning of the events, and the perceived consequences attending these have on their learning.
In our study, physician-scientists tend to choose training in their area of expertise but would enjoy exploring more if they had more time. The CPD choice was chiefly driven by speakers and topics, followed by learning needs. They disputed the utility of the current assessments, which are often seen as box-ticking exercises. While frustration, hostility and negative feelings were voiced for the compulsory ones, other CPD activities were welcomed with excitement, curiosity and a sense of adventure. Enthusiasm and excitement were felt the night before and the morning of the non-compulsory ones. CPD events were perceived to positively affect further learning, with the most immediate consequences being reading an article, networking or interacting with the speakers.
This is the first study exploring the key factors driving a group of physician-scientists while selecting CPD activities and investigating their feelings and emotions related to CPD attendance. More engaging and less box-ticking CPD should be on the cards, along with an adequate evaluation of these activities. It is essential to increase enthusiasm, which can facilitate engagement, and decrease frustration surrounding compulsory CPD activities. We still know too little about the role of emotions in learning, especially about CPD. Future studies should investigate the emotional side of learning across different career stages to restore the leaky pipeline and create a tailored environment with benefits for each of the three sides of the physician-scientist's identity: the clinical, the research, and the academic.
近 40%的诺贝尔医学奖发现是由医师科学家做出的，他们是不断发展的医学、学术和研究领域的推动力。然而，他们的培训几乎没有明确的里程碑。要成为有效的临床医生、教育者和研究人员，他们需要通过涵盖不同领域的持续专业发展（CPD）活动来维持和磨练技能。他们经常被描述为濒危物种。然而，几十年来的警告和建议并没有阻止医师科学家人数的减少，而现在这是一个慢性问题。这在 COVID-19 大流行后进一步加剧，因为资源和支持的缺乏。
我们使用积极和消极情绪量表（PANAS-GEN）进行问卷调查，在对英国的五名从事神经科工作的医师科学家进行个体半结构化访谈之前，先获得他们的初始情绪快照。我们探讨了他们在选择 CPD 活动之前需要平衡的关键因素，以及他们对强制性 CPD 活动和评估的看法。我们调查了他们对强制性和非强制性 CPD 的一般感受，他们在活动前一晚和当天早上的感受，以及参加这些活动对他们学习的影响。
在我们的研究中，医师科学家倾向于选择他们专业领域的培训，但如果有更多时间，他们会更愿意探索更多领域。CPD 的选择主要由演讲者和主题驱动，其次是学习需求。他们对当前评估的实用性提出质疑，因为这些评估往往被视为打勾练习。虽然对强制性的评估感到沮丧、敌意和负面情绪，但其他 CPD 活动则以兴奋、好奇和冒险感来迎接。在非强制性的活动前一晚和当天早上感到兴奋和兴奋。CPD 活动被认为对进一步学习有积极影响，最直接的后果是阅读一篇文章、建立网络或与演讲者互动。
这是第一项探索一组医师科学家选择 CPD 活动时的关键驱动因素，并调查他们与 CPD 参与相关的感受和情绪的研究。应该开展更具吸引力、更少打勾的 CPD，并对这些活动进行适当评估。提高积极性至关重要，这可以促进参与度，并减少对强制性 CPD 活动的挫败感。我们对学习中的情绪作用，特别是 CPD 中的情绪作用了解得还不够多。未来的研究应该调查不同职业阶段学习的情绪方面，以修复漏损的渠道，并为医师科学家身份的三个方面（临床、研究和学术）中的每一个方面创造一个量身定制的环境，为他们带来好处。
