What percentage of physicians do research?

[ZorkDork1]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I know a lot of students, especially those vying for a residency position in a competitive field (derm, ent, ortho, etc.) do research in medical school.

But how many physicians actually continue with research during/after residency?

I can't imagine that virtually every orthopedic surgeon also conducts research on the side.
... or do they?

I'm interested in surgery... and yet I'm not quite sure if I'm ready for a life time of research. Maybe running a few trials here and there, but I feel like I would want most of my efforts dedicated to the clinic and OR. Does that sound blasphemous?

Eh, who knows. Haven't started yet, maybe I'll really love medical research.

Thanks!

 

[MaxPlancker]

Many programs, especially those at academic institutes, have built-in time for research…you can't skip out of it. What's wrong with continuing research during residency? Even if you don't continue research and go straight PP, the skills you develop are invaluable.

 

[ZorkDork1]

Many programs, especially those at academic institutes, have built-in time for research…you can't skip out of it. What's wrong with continuing research during residency? Even if you don't continue research and go straight PP, the skills you develop are invaluable.

Well, research itself sounds pretty good, especially if it's a project I am passionate about.
But I've learned that a lot of bureaucracy surrounds research. Fighting for grants, feeling the pressure from institution to publish, etc. I'm just not sure if I want the pressure of that on top of caring for my actual patients.

 

[MaxPlancker]

Well, research itself sounds pretty good, especially if it's a project I am passionate about.
But I've learned that a lot of bureaucracy surrounds research. Fighting for grants, feeling the pressure from institution to publish, etc. I'm just not sure if I want the pressure of that on top of caring for my actual patients.

There's ways to go about carrying out your research without applying for grants, etc. You will learn more about how to do this as you go through your training. I do agree that conducting majority-time research is not for the faint-hearted!

 

[ed*26]

You won't be obligated to complete research as a physician (being a resident is a different story). Some fields are more prone to it than others (for example, oncology) and some settings as well (large academic centers), but I'd say the majority of physicians do not devote substantial time to research. That's why MD/PhD programs are so well-funded.

Your goals will impact whether you feel the need to complete research. I was curious and looked through a few profiles of the faculty at the ortho dept at my UG. Not all had publications, but those who did tended to be publishing surgical case reports. So not exactly large, randomized, double-blind trials; they probably simply don't have time for that.

 

[LizzyM]

Docs who are not in academic medical centers aren't expected to do research. Even some docs on the faculty of med schools, particularly those in primary care, aren't expected to do research if they pull their weight in patient care and teaching (bedside teaching or facilitating small groups of medical students, not necessarily lecturing to large groups).

My guess would be that 90% of all US physicians who are out of residency/fellowship training haven't done any research in the last year.

 

[Taddy Mason]

1/4 go HAM on research, 1/4 find a reasonable balance, 1/4 make a half assed attempt to make it look like they're into research, and 1/4 say fu(k it after residency/fellowship.

 

[Lucca]

1/4 go HAM on research, 1/4 find a reasonable balance, 1/4 make a half assed attempt to make it look like they're into research, and 1/4 say fu(k it after residency/fellowship.

Wayyyyy too high an estimate.

The Kaiser family foundation reports 900,000 professionally active MDs in the current US workforce. The NIH physician scientist workforce report cites about 8300 NIH-funded MDs or MD/PhDs. Assuming the vast majority of physician scientists are fully or partially funded by the NIH (most likely a reasonable assumption, I'll check later) that means approximately 1% of professionally active physicians in the US are themselves funded scientists. Assuming some number larger than this includes physicians not themselves funded by the NIH but working under others in various research capacities (most likely as a part or extension of their clinical trainin) I would assume about 5% of US physicians are actively doing science. I imagine the figure is even smaller for primarily basic or translational science investigators.

 

[Taddy Mason]

Wayyyyy too high an estimate.

The Kaiser family foundation reports 900,000 professionally active MDs in the current US workforce. The NIH physician scientist workforce report cites about 8300 NIH-funded MDs or MD/PhDs. Assuming the vast majority of physician scientists are fully or partially funded by the NIH (most likely a reasonable assumption, I'll check later) that means approximately 1% of professionally active physicians in the US are themselves funded scientists. Assuming some number larger than this includes physicians not themselves funded by the NIH but working under others in various research capacities (most likely as a part or extension of their clinical trainin) I would assume about 5% of US physicians are actively doing science. I imagine the figure is even smaller for primarily basic or translational science investigators.

I was shooting from the hip with that comment. However, you're forgetting about all of the non-NIH research and clinical trials that are funded by pharma companies.

 

[Lucca]

I was shooting from the hip with that comment. However, you're forgetting about all of the non-NIH research and clinical trials that are funded by pharma companies.

My assumption is that they are small compared to the number of biomedical researchers funded by the NIH. According to NIH reports, the NIH funds 83% of publically funded biomedical research. Even if you extrapolate beyond the available data and assume physician scientists are funded proportionally by private sources then you still don't get beyond 5% of the active physician workforce doing research if you are being as generous as possible.

 

[LizzyM]

My assumption is that they are small compared to the number of biomedical researchers funded by the NIH. According to NIH reports, the NIH funds 83% of publically funded biomedical research. Even if you extrapolate beyond the available data and assume physician scientists are funded proportionally by private sources then you still don't get beyond 5% of the active physician workforce doing research if you are being as generous as possible.

Thanks for the evidence! There are tons of academic MDs engaged as local PIs in pharma funded clinical trials. These are not NIH funded PIs.

 

[Taddy Mason]

My assumption is that they are small compared to the number of biomedical researchers funded by the NIH. According to NIH reports, the NIH funds 83% of publically funded biomedical research. Even if you extrapolate beyond the available data and assume physician scientists are funded proportionally by private sources then you still don't get beyond 5% of the active physician workforce doing research if you are being as generous as possible.

The public side of things is a drop in the pond, and unfortunately where a large portion of the the integrity is concentrated.

 

[Lucca]

Thanks for the evidence! There are tons of academic MDs engaged as local PIs in pharma funded clinical trials. These are not NIH funded PIs.

That's true, unfortunately I don't know where to find data for them 🙁

 

[Crayola227]

plenty of hospitals and organization and residency programs do "research" within their institution, and you can get pubs that way, and it can all just be chart review and the tears of med students/residents going into it or some such other "quality management" scheme

it's wrong to just say funding is a measure of research activity, in the strictest sense

 

[Law2Doc]

My assumption is that they are small compared to the number of biomedical researchers funded by the NIH. According to NIH reports, the NIH funds 83% of publically funded biomedical research. Even if you extrapolate beyond the available data and assume physician scientists are funded proportionally by private sources then you still don't get beyond 5% of the active physician workforce doing research if you are being as generous as possible.

Meh, a very large percentage of research done at academic institutions isn't funded at all. The guys with the NIH or industry grants and private labs are the stars, but definitely the minority. Very few faculty members at academic institutions have such grants but all need to do "research" to advance their careers/keep their jobs - it's not optional in academics. But a ton of the papers/posters generated by faculty are really just a doctor with a weekly academic day having a med student or resident help him do a chart review or write up a case report or do a doctor or patient survey. That's all "research" and probably most of the "research" out there. So you have to extrapolate much bigger. Most of the academic clinicians you know aren't doing bench work, working with mice or running gels. I'd say all doctors in academic careers and the tiny handful that go into things like public health or industry will do some form of research and most won't have grants. Not sure what percentage that works out to, but I'd bet it's more like 10-15% of all physicians. Still the minority of course.