Exploring Reasons That U.S. MD-PhD Students Enter and Leave Their Dual-Degree Programs

Abstract

Aim/Purpose: In response to widespread efforts to increase the size and diversity of the biomedical-research workforce in the U.S., a large-scale qualitative study was conducted to examine current and former students’ training experiences in MD (Doctor of Medicine), PhD (Doctor of Philosophy), and MD-PhD dual-degree programs. In this paper, we aimed to describe the experiences of a subset of study participants who had dropped out their MD-PhD dual-degree training program, the reasons they entered the MD-PhD program, as well as their reasons for discontinuing their training for the MD-PhD. Background: To our knowledge, the U.S. has the longest history of MD-PhD dual-degree training programs dating back to the 1950s and produces the largest number of MD-PhD graduates in the world. Integrated dual-degree MD-PhD programs are offered at more than 90 medical schools in the U.S., and historically have included three phases – preclinical, PhD-research, and clinical training, all during medical-school training. On average, it takes eight years of training to complete requirements for the MD-PhD dual-degree. MD-PhD students have unique training experiences, different from MD-only or PhD-only students. Not all MD-PhD students complete their training, at a cost to funding agencies, schools, and students themselves. Methodology: We purposefully sampled from 97 U.S. schools with doctoral programs, posting advertisements for recruitment of participants who were engaged in or had completed PhD, MD, and MD-PhD training. Between 2011 and 2013, semi-structured, one-on-one phone interviews were conducted with 217 participants. Using a phenomenological approach and inductive, thematic analysis, we examined students’ reasons for entering the MD-PhD dual-degree program, when they decided to leave, and their reasons for leaving MD-PhD training. Contribution: Study findings offer new insights into MD-PhD students’ reasons for leaving the program, beyond what is known about program attrition based on retrospective analysis of existing national data, as little is known about students’ actual reasons for attrition. By more deeply exploring students’ reasons for attrition, programs can find ways to improve MD-PhD students’ training experiences and boost their retention in these dual-degree programs to completion, which will, in turn, foster expansion of the biomedical-research-workforce capacity. Findings: Seven participants in the larger study reported during their interview that they left their MD-PhD programs before finishing, and these were the only participants who reported leaving their doctoral training. At the time of interview, two participants had completed the MD and were academic-medicine faculty, four were completing medical school, and one dropped out of medicine to complete a PhD in Education. Participants reported enrolling in MD-PhD programs to work in both clinical practice and research. Very positive college research experiences, mentorship, and personal reasons also played important roles in participants’ decisions to pursue the dual MD-PhD degree. However, once in the program, positive mentorship and other opportunities that they experienced during or after college, which initially drew candidates to the program was found lacking. Four themes emerged as reasons for leaving the MD-PhD program: (1) declining interest in research, (2) isolation and lack of social integration during the different training phases, (3) suboptimal PhD-advising experiences, and (4) unforeseen obstacles to completing PhD research requirements, such as loss of funding. Recommendations for Practitioners: Though limited by a small sample size, findings highlight the need for better integrated institutional and programmatic supports for MD-PhD students, especially during PhD training. Recommendation for Researchers: Researchers should continue to explore if other programmatic aspects of MD-PhD training (other than challenges experienced during PhD training, as discussed in this paper) are particularly problematic and pose challenges to the successful completion of the program. Impact on Society: The MD-PhD workforce comprises a small, but highly trained cadre of physician-scientists with the expertise to conduct clinical and/or basic science research aimed at improving patient care and developing new diagnostic tools and therapies. Although MD-PhD graduates comprise a small proportion of all MD graduates in the U.S. and globally, about half of all MD-trained physician-scientists in the U.S. federally funded biomedical-research workforce are MD-PhD-trained physicians. Training is extensive and rigorous. Improving experiences during the PhD-training phase could help reduce MD-PhD program attrition, as attrition results in substantial financial cost to federal and private funding agencies and to medical schools that fund MD-PhD programs in the U.S. and other countries. Future Research: Future research could examine, in greater depth, how communications among students, faculty and administrators in various settings, such as classrooms, research labs, and clinics, might help MD-PhD students become more fully integrated into each new program phase and continue in the program to completion. Future research could also examine experiences of MD-PhD students from groups underrepresented in medicine and the biomedical-research workforce (e.g., first-generation college graduates, women, and racial/ethnic minorities), which might serve to inform interventions to increase the numbers of applicants to MD-PhD programs and help reverse the steady decline in the physician-scientist workforce over the past several decades.

Exploring reasons for MD-PhD trainees’ experiences of impostor phenomenon

“…Transitions can make individuals feel vulnerable and have implications for professional development and the provision of optimal patient care [ 80 ]. MD-PhD mentors are needed to support MD-PhD students to successfully navigate these challenges [ 3 , 81 ]. Here, too, closed-mentoring triads could be helpful in creating a support network for trainees experiencing stressful transitions and impostor phenomenon.…”

First-generation and continuing-generation college graduates’ application, acceptance, and matriculation to U.S. medical schools: a national cohort study

“…Another limitation is that we could not control for parental income with the data available, although college education correlates with parental socio-economic status. In addition, parents who have not attended or graduated from college may have, relative to college graduate parents, less medical school-related social capital, social networks and ‘funds of knowledge’ that could help develop an early interest in and exposure to the field, and, fewer financial resources to support their child as prepare for medical training [ 41–44 ].…”

Ten years of NIHR research training: perceptions of the programmes: a qualitative interview study

“…Open access and unattractive. [6][7][8][9][10] In the non-medical clinical professions, there is evidence of additional barriers: clinical managers who do not value research expertise, limited infrastructure support and an absence of research career pathways beyond doctoral level-all factors potentially amplifying more widespread gender inequalities between the professions. [11][12][13][14] In the UK, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Academy (formerly known as the Trainees Co-ordinating Centre) was set up in 2006 to help build national research capacity in healthcare by supporting research leaders of the future.…”

“…A number of studies have used qualitative approaches to examine factors encouraging or deterring clinical professionals from pursuing an academic career. Even in medicine, where research is widely valued and appointments combining clinical and academic roles are well established, difficulties in reconciling different role demands are common and a research career can still be seen as insecure and unattractive 6–10. In the non-medical clinical professions, there is evidence of additional barriers: clinical managers who do not value research expertise, limited infrastructure support and an absence of research career pathways beyond doctoral level—all factors potentially amplifying more widespread gender inequalities between the professions 11–14…”