Advertisement

Formative research experiences in pediatric surgeons: a mixed methods study of Pediatric Trauma Society members

  • Cory McLaughlin
  • Erica Barin
  • Henri Ford
  • Jeffrey Upperman
  • Laura Cassidy
  • Rita V. BurkeEmail author
Original Article
  • 24 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

A career in pediatric surgery has historically required extensive research experience, but the optimal research training is not well defined. The purpose of this study was to explore the formative research experiences among pediatric surgeons.

Methods

A 1-h focus group was held with 14 pediatric surgeons at the 2017 Pediatric Trauma Society annual meeting. A 17-item survey was also administered. Questions were intended to elicit discussion of prior research experiences. A qualitative analysis of the dialogue was performed.

Results

Seventy-seven percent of respondents completed a research fellowship. Most (77%) currently conduct clinical research. Participants most frequently desired additional training in study design (50%), NIH funding (43%), and grant preparation (43%). Seven themes were identified from the focus group: (1) Early research exposure is rudimentary; (2) Resume-building was a motivation; (3) Mentorship is important; (4) Institutional resources are vital; (5) Independent learning is necessary; (6) Protected time is limited; and (7) Basic science research is not always practical.

Conclusions

Many pediatric surgeons feel that their research training can be improved upon. Formal mentorship, dedicated research time, and institutional resources were perceived to be important factors. Education in research study design, grant writing, and NIH funding may be beneficial.

Level of evidence

V, expert opinion.

Keywords

Research experience Pediatric surgery 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors report no external funding source for this study. Children’s Hospital Los Angeles Institutional Review Board Approval # CHLA-17-00384.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Little DC, Yoder SM, Grikscheit TC et al (2005) Cost considerations and applicant characteristics for the Pediatric Surgery Match. J Pediatr Surg 40:69–74.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2004.09.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beres A, Baird R, Puligandla PS (2011) Success in the Pediatric Surgery Match: a survey of the 2010 applicant pool. J Pediatr Surg 46:957–961.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2011.02.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arca MJ, Teitelbaum DH, St. Peter SD et al (2010) Research interests and funding of members of the American Pediatric Surgical Association: report from 2010 American Pediatric Surgical Association Outcomes and Clinical Trials Committee. J Pediatr Surg 45:1983–1988.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2010.05.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    King A, Sharma-Crawford I, Shaaban AF et al (2013) The pediatric surgeon’s road to research independence: utility of mentor-based National Institutes of Health grants. J Surg Res 184:66–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2013.03.050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stolar CJH, Aspelund G (2013) First employment characteristics for the 2011 pediatric surgery fellowship graduates. J Pediatr Surg 48:99–103.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2012.10.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Markel TA, Rescorla FJ (2015) A survey of the pediatric surgery program directors: optimizing resident research to make pediatric surgery training more efficient. J Pediatr Surg 50:1053–1057.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2015.03.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stolar CJH, Alapan AA, Torres SA (2010) University pediatric surgery: benchmarking performance. J Pediatr Surg 45:28–37.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2009.10.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Association of American Medical Colleges (2013) Physician Education Debt and the Cost to Attend Medical School, 2012 updateGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Keswani SG, Moles CM, Morowitz M et al (2017) The future of basic science in academic surgery: identifying barriers to success for surgeon-scientists. Ann Surg 265:1053–1059.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldstein AM, Blair AB, Keswani SG et al (2018) A roadmap for aspiring surgeon-scientists in today’s healthcare environment. Ann Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002840 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garrison HH, Deschamps AM (2014) NIH research funding and early career physician scientists: continuing challenges in the 21st century. FASEB J 28:1049–1058.  https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.13-241687 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fraser JD, Aguayo P, Peter SS et al (2011) Analysis of the pediatric surgery match: factors predicting outcome. Pediatr Surg Int 27:1239–1244.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-011-2912-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leung F-H, Savithiri R (2009) Spotlight on focus groups. Can Fam Physician 55:218–219Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cory McLaughlin
    • 1
  • Erica Barin
    • 1
  • Henri Ford
    • 1
  • Jeffrey Upperman
    • 1
  • Laura Cassidy
    • 2
  • Rita V. Burke
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Division of Pediatric Surgery, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and Keck School of MedicineUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Division of EpidemiologyMedical College of WisconsinMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations