How does the outcome of research training fellowships funded via the NHS compare with that from competitively funded fellowships from the MRC and other charities: a cross-sectional retrospective survey of trainees undertaking research training in the West Midlands

• Published in: BMJ open Vol. 8; no. 1; p. e019630
• Main Authors: Maybury, Charlotte, Morgan, Matthew David, Smith, Russell, Harper, Lorraine
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BMJ Publishing Group LTD 01.01.2018; BMJ Publishing Group
• Subjects: Cancer; Careers; Charities; Clinical medicine; Councils; Cross-Sectional Studies; Fellowships and Scholarships - economics; Female; Financing, Organized; Funding; Health education; Health services; Humans; Male; Medical Education and Training; Medical research; Peer review; Questionnaires; Research - economics; Research - education; Retrospective Studies; State Medicine - economics; Supervisors; Surveys and Questionnaires; United Kingdom > UK; England; Midlands (England); academic training; research funding
• ISSN: 2044-6055; 2044-6055
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019630

ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate the impact of research training funded via the National Health Service (NHS) on medical trainees compared with traditional clinical research training fellowships (CRTFs).Design, setting and participantsOnline survey of 221 clinical trainees who had completed a period of research during their clinical training between 2009 and 2015 in the West Midlands.Main outcome measuresResearch outcomes.ResultsOverall response rate was 59%, of whom 72 participants were funded by CRTFs and 51 funded by the NHS. Although participants with CRTFs were more likely to be awarded a higher degree compared with those on NHS-administered funding (66/72 CRTFs and 37/51 NHS, P=0.005), similar proportions of NHS-funded and CRTF-funded participants entered clinical lecturer posts on completing initial research training (8/51 NHS and 16/72 CRTF, P=0.37). 77% of participants had three or more publications (CRTF 57 and NHS 39, P=0.72). 57 participants had completed clinical training; similar proportions of CRTF-funded and NHS-funded trainees had research included in their consultant contract (12/22 NHS and 14/26 CRTF, P=0.96) or were appointed to academic posts (3 of 25 NHS funded and 6 of 32 CRTF, P>0.05). 95% of participants would recommend to colleagues and 82% of participants felt the research experience improved their provision of clinical care with no difference between CRTF-funded and NHS-funded participants (P=0.49). Continuing to participate in clinical work during the research reduced reports of trainee difficulty on returning to clinical work (23/108 continued clinical work vs 12/22 no clinical work, P=0.001).ConclusionResearch training funded by the NHS provides a quality experience and contributes to the clinical academic capacity within the UK. More needs to be done to support NHS participants to successfully achieve a higher degree.