4.6 Article

Effect of two Howard Hughes Medical Institute research training programs for medical students on the likelihood of pursuing research careers

期刊

ACADEMIC MEDICINE
卷 78, 期 12, 页码 1271-1280

出版社

ASSOC AMER MEDICAL COLLEGES
DOI: 10.1097/00001888-200312000-00017

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose. To assess the effect of Howard Hughes Medical Institute's (HHMI) two one-year research training programs for medical students on the awardees' research careers. Method. Awardees of the HHMI Cloister Program who graduated between 1987 and 1995 and awardees of the HHMI Medical Fellows Program who graduated between 1991 and 1995 were compared with unsuccessful applicants to the programs and MD-PhD students who graduated during the same periods. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess research career outcomes while controlling for academic and demographic variables that could affect selection to the programs. Results. Participation in both HHMI programs increased the likelihood of receiving National Institutes of Health postdoctoral support. Participation in the Cloister Program also increased the likelihood of receiving a faculty appointment with research responsibility at a medical school. In addition, awardees of the Medical Fellows Program were not significantly less likely than Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) and non-MSTP MD-PhD program participants to receive a National Institutes of Health postdoctoral award, and awardees of the Cloister Program were not significantly less likely than non-MSTP MD-PhD students to receive a faculty appointment with research responsibility. Women and underrepresented minority students were proportionally represented among awardees of the two HHMI programs whereas they were relatively underrepresented in MD-PhD programs. Conclusions. The one-year intensive research training supported by the HHMI training programs appears to provide an effective imprinting experience on medical students' research careers and to be an attractive strategy for training physician-scientists.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据