Horazdovsky, Bruce F

Abstract M.D.-Ph.D. programs in the United States have traditionally followed a “2- n -2” curricular model, with the graduate phase occurring between the pre-clerkship and clerkship portions of medical training. While well established, this format can limit trainee autonomy in shaping their physician-scientist training trajectories. In response, some programs have introduced a “3- n -1” model, allowing students to complete clerkships before beginning Ph.D. training. Our institution implemented multiple flexible curricula in 2017. Understanding why trainees choose one pathway is important as programs consider implementing more adaptable training structures. To investigate these factors, we surveyed M.D.-Ph.D. students at our institution, which offers multiple flexible curricular alternatives, about contributions to their curricular decisions. Responses supported that trainees weigh considerations across medical education, scientific development, and integrated physician-scientist training domains. Although the traditional pathway was a popular option, most students pursued one of the flexible pathways. Our findings suggest that introducing flexibility in the timing of undergraduate medical education and graduate training can support diverse educational, logistical, and personal priorities while maintaining the rigor of physician-scientist training. Offering multiple pathways empowers trainees to design trajectories that best fit their needs. Continued longitudinal studies are needed to assess the long-term impacts of flexible curricula on physician-scientist career outcomes.

When COVID-19 caused worldwide cancellations of summer research immersion programs in 2020, Mayo Clinic rallied to create an alternate virtual experience called Summer Foundations in Research (SFIR). SFIR was designed not only to ensure the continuance of science pathways training for undergraduate scientists but also to support undergraduate mental wellbeing, given the known pandemic stressors. A total of 170 participants took part in the program and were surveyed pre-post for outcomes in biomedical research career knowledge, biomedical research career interest, research skills confidence, and three dimensions of mental wellbeing. Knowledge of and interest in careers involving biomedical research rose significantly following participation in SFIR. The participants’ mean research skills confidence also rose between 0.08 and 1.32 points on a 7-point scale across 12 items from the Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory. Success in science pathways support was accompanied by positive shifts in participant mental wellbeing. Measurable decreases in stress (Perceived Stress Scale, p < 0.0001) accompanied gains in resilience (Brief Resilience Scale, p < 0.0001) and life satisfaction (Satisfaction with Life Scale, p = 0.0005). Collectively, the data suggest that core objectives of traditional in-person summer research programming can be accomplished virtually and that these programs can simultaneously impact student wellbeing. This theoretical framework is particularly salient during COVID-19, but the increased accessibility of virtual programs such as SFIR can continue to bolster science education pathways long after the pandemic is gone.