The authors evaluated and reviewed the literature on the effects of medical school curricula, faculty role models, and federal biomedical research support on the specialty choices of U.S. medical students. All 275 articles on these subjects published from 1984 through 1993 were considered. An instrument was developed to assess the quality of the articles. A total of 85 articles met study criteria and were reviewed. The mean score achieved was 42.7% of the total possible points. Major educational reforms emphasizing primary care have resulted in significant increases in the percentages of graduates choosing generalist careers. Except for required clinical training in family practice, individual curriculum components have generally not been successful. Students and physicians often stated that faculty role models influenced specialty choices, and there is some evidence that faculty composition is related to students' career choices. There was a consistent inverse correlation between the amount of federal biomedical research support received and the percentage of a school's graduates choosing generalist careers. It is unknown whether this relationship is causative and, if so, how research funds affect specialty choices. The best strategies to enlarge the proportion of medical students choosing generalist careers include institutional reform to emphasize generalist training, increasing the size of generalist faculty, and requiring clinical training in family practice. The relationship of federal biomedical research support to the specialty choices of medical students needs to be studied further. Research on specialty choice could be improved by including a larger number of schools and students, studying trends over several years, and using validated measures and outcomes, control groups, and multivariate analyses.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

The results suggest that the most effective way to increase the number of physicians with generalist practices is to increase the number of students interested in a family medicine career at matriculation.

BackgroundPandemics of new and emerging infectious diseases are unpredictable, recurrent events that rapidly threaten global health and security. We aimed to identify public views regarding provision of information and consent to participate in primary and critical care clinical research during a future influenza‐like illness pandemic.MethodsDescriptive‐interpretive qualitative study, using focus groups (n = 10) and semi‐structured interviews (n = 16), with 80 members of the public (>18 years) in Belgium, Spain, Poland and the UK. Local qualitative researchers followed a scenario‐based topic guide to collect data. Data were transcribed verbatim, translated into English and subject to framework analysis.ResultsPublic understandings of pandemics were shaped by personal factors (illness during the previous H1N1 pandemic, experience of life‐threatening illness) and social factors (historical references, media, public health information). Informants appreciated safeguards provided by ethically robust research procedures, but current enrolment procedures were seen as a barrier. They proposed simplified enrolment processes for higher risk research and consent waiver for certain types of low‐risk research. Decision making about research participation was influenced by contextual, research and personal factors. Informants generally either carefully weighed up various approaches to research participation or responded instinctively. They supported the principle of using routinely collected, anonymized clinical biological samples for research without explicit consent, but regarded this as less acceptable if researchers were motivated primarily by commercial gain.ConclusionsThis bottom‐up approach to ascertaining public views on pandemic clinical research has identified support for more proportionate research protection procedures for publically funded, low‐risk studies.

What the public think about participation in medical research during an influenza pandemican international cross-sectional survey

BackgroundA rigorous research response is required to inform clinical and public health decision-making during an epi/pandemic. However, the ethical conduct of such research, which often involves critically ill patients, may be complicated by the diminished capacity to consent and an imperative to initiate trial therapies within short time frames. Alternative approaches to taking prospective informed consent may therefore be used. We aimed to rapidly review evidence on key stakeholder (patients, their proxy decision-makers, clinicians and regulators) views concerning the acceptability of various approaches for obtaining consent relevant to pandemic-related acute illness research.MethodsWe conducted a rapid evidence review, using the Internet, database and hand-searching for English language empirical publications from 1996 to 2014 on stakeholder opinions of consent models (prospective informed, third-party, deferred, or waived) used in acute illness research. We excluded research on consent to treatment, screening, or other such procedures, non-emergency research and secondary studies. Papers were categorised, and data summarised using narrative synthesis.ResultsWe screened 689 citations, reviewed 104 full-text articles and included 52. Just one paper related specifically to pandemic research. In other emergency research contexts potential research participants, clinicians and research staff found third-party, deferred, and waived consent to be acceptable as a means to feasibly conduct such research. Acceptability to potential participants was motivated by altruism, trust in the medical community, and perceived value in medical research and decreased as the perceived risks associated with participation increased. Discrepancies were observed in the acceptability of the concept and application or experience of alternative consent models. Patients accepted clinicians acting as proxy-decision makers, with preference for two decision makers as invasiveness of interventions increased. Research regulators were more cautious when approving studies conducted with alternative consent models; however, their views were generally under-represented.ConclusionsThird-party, deferred, and waived consent models are broadly acceptable to potential participants, clinicians and/or researchers for emergency research. Further consultation with key stakeholders, particularly with regulators, and studies focused specifically on epi/pandemic research, are required. We highlight gaps and recommendations to inform set-up and protocol development for pandemic research and institutional review board processes.PROSPERO protocol registration numberCRD42014014000Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-1110-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.