Purpose

With a growing need for developing future physician scientists, identifying characteristics of medical students who are likely to benefit from research training programs is important. This study assessed if specific learning styles of medical students, participating in federally funded short-term research training programs, were associated with research self-efficacy, a potential predictor of research career success.

Method

Seventy-five first-year medical students from 28 medical schools, selected to participate in two competitive NIH-supported summer programs for research training in aging, completed rating scales to evaluate learning styles at baseline, and research self-efficacy before and after training. We examined associations of individual learning styles (visual-verbal, sequential-global, sensing-intuitive, and active-reflective) with students' gender, ranking of medical school, and research self-efficacy.

Results

Research self-efficacy improved significantly following the training programs. Students with a verbal learning style reported significantly greater research self-efficacy at baseline, while visual, sequential, and intuitive learners demonstrated significantly greater increases in research self-efficacy from baseline to posttraining. No significant relationships were found between learning styles and students' gender or ranking of their medical school.

Conclusions

Assessments of learning styles may provide useful information to guide future training endeavors aimed at developing the next generation of physician-scientists.

Objective

There is a growing concern about a shortage of physician scientists. This problem is particularly severe in certain subspecialties such as geriatrics in general and geriatric psychiatry in particular. This study sought to obtain medical students' perspectives on barriers and facilitators toward pursuing a career in academics and/or in geriatric psychiatry or geriatic medicine.

Methods

The study surveyed 27 first-year medical students from six US medical schools, who had demonstrated a clear interest in academic geriatrics by completing a mentored summer research training program in geriatric medicine or geriatric psychiatry, funded by the National Institute on Aging. The survey included open-ended and close-ended questions about likely career choice and factors affecting it.

Results

Sixty percent of students reported they were likely to pursue an academic career, 44 % a career in geriatric psychiatry or geriatic medicine, and only 36 % a career in academic geriatrics. The most frequently perceived barriers were a lack of knowledge about academic careers and lack of exposure to geriatrics, financial concerns due to loan debts and low compensation, and negative impressions of research and of working with older adults. Facilitators included positive experiences with or positive impressions of research and research mentors and of older adults, and the growing demand for geriatric care.

Conclusions

Attracting capable and motivated medical students to academic careers in fields such as geriatric psychiatry or geriatic medicine should be a priority in seeking to expand the number of physician scientists and to add to the health-care workforce in underserved subspecialty areas. Necessary approaches should include opportunities to work in academic settings; availability of sustained and dedicated mentorship; early, consistent, and positive exposure to older adults; and financial incentives.