Clinician-Scientists in Canada: Barriers to Career Entry and Progress
Clinician-Scientists in Canada: Barriers to Career Entry and Progress
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0013168
复制
发表时间：
2010-10-04
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Atkinson-Grosjean, Janet
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lander, Bryn;Hanley, Gillian E.;Atkinson-Grosjean, Janet
背景：临床科学家在研究与临床实践之间起着重要的转换作用。人们对它们的数量下降表示了极大的担忧。本研究探讨了潜在的职业进入和晋升障碍。方法：采用案例研究的方法，确定加拿大两个实验室的临床科学家及其研究团队所感知的障碍。然后将这些认知与加拿大卫生研究院(CIHR)数据库中2000-2008财年临床科学家和非临床博士的资助和奖励绩效数据的统计分析进行比较。结果：通过定性分析确定了三个主要障碍：研究培训、研究薪酬和研究资助。然后，我们在我们研究期间的加拿大范围的统计数据集中寻找这些障碍的证据。临床科学家的平均学位数量(3.3)高于非临床科学家(3.2)，这可能证实了培训时间更长的看法，这一点很小，但在统计学上有显著意义。但其他两个障碍的证据是模棱两可的。例如，虽然工资奖励的总体增长很小，但对临床医生和科学家的奖励增加了45%，而非临床博士的奖励增加了6.3%。同样，在研究资金方面，对临床医生-科学家的奖励增加了25%以上，而对非临床博士的奖励增加了5%。然而，CIHR临床主题领域下资助的临床医生-科学家领导的拨款显著减少，从61%下降到51%(p值
Background: Clinician-scientists play an important role in translating between research and clinical practice. Significant concerns about a decline in their numbers have been raised. Potential barriers for career entry and progress are explored in this study.Methods: Case-study research methods were used to identify barriers perceived by clinician-scientists and their research teams in two Canadian laboratories. These perceptions were then compared against statistical analysis of data from Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) databases on grant and award performance of clinician-scientists and non-clinical PhDs for fiscal years 2000 to 2008.Results: Three main barriers were identified through qualitative analysis: research training, research salaries, and research grants. We then looked for evidence of these barriers in the Canada-wide statistical dataset for our study period. Clinician-scientists had a small but statistically significant higher mean number of degrees (3.3) than non-clinical scientists (3.2), potentially confirming the perception of longer training times. But evidence of the other two barriers was equivocal. For example, while overall growth in salary awards was minimal, awards to clinician-scientists increased by 45% compared to 6.3% for non-clinical PhDs. Similarly, in terms of research funding, awards to clinician-scientists increased by more than 25% compared with 5% for non-clinical PhDs. However, clinician-scientist-led grants funded under CIHR's Clinical thematic area decreased significantly from 61% to 51% (p-value