International training considerations of Canadian Clinician-Scientist Trainees - A national survey

Abstract

Purpose: Canadian clinician-scientist trainees enrolled in dual degree programs often pursue an extended training route following completion of MD and MSc or PhD degrees. However, the proportion, plans and reasoning of trainees who intend to pursue training internationally following dual degree completion has not been investigated. In this study, we assessed the international training considerations of current clinician-scientist trainees.
 
 Methods: We designed an 11-question survey, which was sent out by program directors to all current MDPhD program and Clinician Investigator Program (CIP) trainees. Responses were collected from July 8, 2019 to August 8, 2019.
 
 Results: We received a total of 191 responses, with representation from every Canadian medical school and both MD-PhD program and CIP trainees. The majority of trainees are considering completing additional training outside Canada, most commonly post-doctoral and/or clinical fellowships. The most common reasons for considering international training include those related to quality and prestige of training programs. In contrast, the most common reasons for considering staying in Canada for additional training are related to personal and ethical reasons. Irrespective of intentions to pursue international training, the majority of trainees ultimately intend to establish a career in Canada.
 
 Conclusion: While most trainees are considering additional training outside of Canada due to prestige and quality of training, the majority of trainees intend to pursue a career as a clinician-scientist back in Canada. Trainees would likely benefit from improved guidance and mentorship on the value of international training, as well as enhanced support in facilitating cross-border mobility.

What are the chances? Clinician scientist` career pathways in Germany

“…Despite their global importance in science policy [15], there is little empirical research on CSPs in Germany (exceptions are: Bossé et al [3]; Hendriks et al [10]). This stands in contrast to the situation in Canada (Twa et al [14]; Bookey-Basset et al 2022 [2]; Pietrobon et al [13]), the USA (Eshel and Chivukula [9]), Asia (Yoon et al [19]) or Australia (Eley et al [8]; Eley et al [7]), where everyday challenges of clinician scientist pathways and training are widely discussed.…”

Spring 2021: Clinician Investigator Trainee Association Of Canada (CITAC)

“…This past year, CITAC conducted a national survey on this topic [1]. Remarkably, 63% of Canadian CI trainees were considering completing additional training internationally.…”

“…Since then, the CI training landscape has shifted dramatically. The number of Canadian CI trainees enrolled in formal programs has reached record numbers, totalling 289 MD-PhD trainees and 389 Clinical Investigator Program (CIP) trainees as of 2019 [1]. Alumni outcome data have presented conclusive evidence that MD-PhD training programs are effective in producing CI careers [2][3][4].…”

Eighteen years of the medical scientist training program at Hacettepe University

“…In Europe, MSTPs were initially introduced in the 1990s in England, Sweden, and Switzerland; however, the number of programs is significantly lower than in North American countries [3]. There are only few articles examining European program outcomes [6,7], unlike abundant reports on North American, Australian, and New Zealand programs [3,[8][9][10][11][12].…”