Combined Radiology Residency-PhD Program: 10-Year Review of Program Results

Hardman, Rulon L.; Rahal, Andres; Walker, James S.; Tavakoli, Sina; Rodriguez, Pavel; Vargas, Daniel; Suri, Rajeev; Garcia-Rojas, Xavier; Jung, Adam J.; Fullerton, Gary D.; Clarke, Geoffrey D.; Dodd, Gerald D.

doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2013.06.016

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…19,23 Moreover, graduated HRP trainees have significant research productivity. 19,23 These outcomes represent the initial success of the HRP in supporting radiology research training in the United States.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…22 Recent retrospective reviews of the program demonstrated that a statistically significant higher proportion of HRP trainees have moved on to academic careers compared to non-HRP trainees. 19,23 Moreover, graduated HRP trainees have significant research productivity. 19,23 These outcomes represent the initial success of the HRP in supporting radiology research training in the United States.…”

Section: Barriers To Research In Radiology Training Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…24 We believe that a lack of mentorship and uncertainties surrounding job prospects deter interested trainees from pursuing research. [16][17][18][19][20][21] Discussions regarding how to define standards for compensation of protected academic time for radiologists in academic departments may help change trainees' impressions of medical imaging research. In addition, mentorship regarding family planning and even the optimal time to embark on research training would be invaluable.…”

Section: Barriers To Research In Radiology Training Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Common topics identified in the literature include the lack of funding, inadequate research mentorship and lack of departmental support. [16][17][18][19][20][21] Overcoming these barriers in individual Medical Imaging Departments and local and global communities is needed.…”

Section: Barriers To Research In Radiology Training Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Evaluating the Outcomes and Trainee Performance of a Canadian Medical Imaging Clinician Investigator Program

Tsang,

Aakef,

Nourmohammad

et al. 2023

Can Assoc Radiol J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To measure the research productivity of trainees from the University of Toronto’s Medical Imaging Clinician Investigator Program (MI-CIP) and comparing it with the research productivity of trainees from MI-non-CIP and General Surgery (GSx) Clinician Investigator Program. Methods: We identified residents who completed an MI-CIP, MI-non-CIP and GSx-CIP from 2006-2016. In each group of trainees, we assessed 3 research productivity outcomes with non-parametric tests before residency and at 7 years post-CIP completion/post-graduation. Research productivity outcomes include the number of total publications, the number of first-author publications, and the publication’s average journal impact factor (IF). Results: We identified 11 MI-CIP trainees (male/female: 9 [82%]/2 [18%]), 74 MI-non-CIP trainees (46 [62%]/28 [38%]) and 41 GSx-CIP trainees (23 [56%]/18 [44%]). MI-CIP trainees had statistically significant higher research productivity than MI-non-CIP in all measured outcomes. The median (interquartile range, IQR) number of total publications of MI-CIP vs MI-non-CIP trainees was 5.0 (8.0) vs 1.0 (2.0) before residency and 6.0 (10.0) vs .0 (2.0) at 7 years post-CIP completion/post-graduation. The median (IQR) first-author publications of MI-CIP vs MI-non-CIP trainees was 2.0 (3.0) vs .0 (1.0) before residency and 2.0 (4.0) vs (.0) (1.0) at 7 years post-CIP completion/post-graduation. The median (IQR) average journal IF of MI-CIP vs MI-non-CIP trainees was 3.2 (2.0) vs .3 (2.4) before residency and 3.9 (3.2) vs .0 (2.6) at 7 years post-CIP completion/post-graduation. Between MI-CIP and GSx-CIP trainees, there were no significant differences in research productivity in all measured outcomes. Conclusion: MI-CIP trainees actively conducted research after graduation. These trainees demonstrated early research engagement before residency. The similar research productivity of MI-CIP vs GSx-CIP trainees shows initial success of MI-CIP trainees.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Barriers To Research In Radiology Training Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Barriers To Research In Radiology Training Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Barriers To Research In Radiology Training Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluating the Outcomes and Trainee Performance of a Canadian Medical Imaging Clinician Investigator Program

Tsang,

Aakef,

Nourmohammad

et al. 2023

Can Assoc Radiol J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies in the past have been carried out to evaluate the benefit of dedicated research time. A minimum of one month was shown to have an impact on research productivity and project completion to foster residence research interest (Hames, Patlas & Duszak, 2018;Hardman et al, 2013;Bammeke et al, 2015;Jerzak & Haider 2015;Silcox, Ashbury & Vandenkerkhof, 2006;Rothberg et al, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived Barriers and Motivating Factors Influencing Research Productivity Among Nursing and Allied Health Professionals Trainers

Shanmugam

Zakaria

Ismail

et al. 2019

MJN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Ministry of Health (MOH) Malaysia colleges, offer diploma and advanced diploma programmes for nursing, assistant medical officer and other allied health personnel. As academic institutions, the trainers are encouraged to participate and enhance the colleges' research productivity. The aim of this study is to explore the perceived barriers and motivation factors for research in MOH colleges. Method: A qualitative research design was conducted among MOH colleges trainers. Semi structured questions were used in 11 Focus Group Discussion (FGD) and 13 In-Depth Interview (IDI) among 98 respondents from seven MOH colleges. Thematic analysis was used to identify emerging themes from the interviews. Results: Three institutional factors motivate engagement in research: key performance indicator, research support and research skills. Majority of respondents were aware of the importance of research, but their research productivity is low due to perceived barriers related to human resource, research material, technical and funding support. Conclusion: The findings are useful in understanding research motivation as well as ascertain barriers that can be overcome through better support and recognition. Such understanding will help improve the policy for research across the colleges.

show abstract