The Research Productivity of Canadian Physicians: How the Timing of Obtaining a PhD Has an Influence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether the sequence of training to obtain MD and PhD degrees is associated with different career paths for physicians who have their PhD before medical school and those who obtain it after their MD, and to explore the factors that encourage or dissuade Canadian dual-degree physicians in pursuing a research career. METHOD: In 2003, questionnaires from the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, were sent to all 734 Canadian physicians having MDs and PhDs, identified through the Canadian Medical Directory. Data collected were gender; year and country of MD; sequence of obtaining degrees; portion of time on clinical, research, teaching, and administrative duties; number of publications and currently held grant amounts; and perceived incentives and disincentives to research careers. Two focus groups were held with a subset of physicians to further explore themes. RESULTS: The response rate was 64%. On the basis of the timing of the PhD relative to the MD, physicians were designated early PhDs (26%), concurrent PhDs (12%), or late PhDs (62%). Late PhDs spent more time in research and less time on clinical practice than the other two groups and spent more time teaching and had published more papers than the early PhDs. Grant amounts were highest for late PhDs. Lack of time and resources were the major disincentives to research, and noteworthy incentives were the opportunity for intellectual challenge and creativity, and previous research experience. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians who obtain a PhD after an MD have a more research-focused career than those who enter medical school with a PhD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.153 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".