New work performed at the University of Pittsburgh found that 81% of residents who took a year (and a cut in pay) for research would do it again. This new survey found that applicants to research-track residency programs found numerous benefits, both monetary and professional, from completing such a program.
Should Residents Devote One Year for Research? Survey says…
2 min read Premium comments
Secondary#orthopedicresidency#Orthopedicresearch
Their work, “Research-Track Residency Programs in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Survey of Program Directors and Recent Graduates,” appears in the August 7, 2019 edition of The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery.
Co-author Kenneth Egol, M.D. with the New York University Hospital for Joint Diseases in New York, described the goals of the study to OTW, “My co-author, MaCalus “Mac” Hogan, M.D., M.B.A., was interested in what program directors and their graduates thought about spending a dedicated year of research in the lab during their orthopedic training.”
Egol and Hogan sent surveys to 23 orthopedic programs with tracks including at least one year of protected research time. Nineteen responded. They also sent surveys to the 2012-2016 research-track graduates (86 email addresses were obtained; 66 responded).
According to Egol and Hogan, “…only 2 of these program directors were willing to accept lower scores and grades among applicants to their research track compared with their primary clinical track…most of the program directors (14) preferred that applicants have an interest in academics, only a few (3) considered it a failure if their research-track residents did not pursue academic careers.”
“…those who went in to academic careers were more likely than those who went into private practice to view completing a research track as beneficial for fellowship (73% versus 35%) and job (73% versus 22%) applications, believed that the income lost from the additional year of residency would be compensated for by opportunities gained from the research year (50% versus 17%), and said that they would pursue a research-track residency if they had to do it over again (81% versus 39%).”
Dr. Egol summarized the results of the study to OTW, “While not all participants pursued academic careers, none felt the experience detrimental in their development as physicians. I think this is important because we, as orthopedic surgery program directors, are trying to enhance the number and quality of clinician scientists in the field of orthopedic surgery. Many of us believe this is critical as translational research transforms our field.”
“Qualified, interested applicants should be carefully vetted to maximize positive results for these training slots.”
React:
Discussion
This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?
Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.
We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.
Join the conversation
Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.