Attitudes Toward Surgical Innovation Research in the Pediatric Surgery Fellowship Match

Pediatric surgery applicants are increasingly pursuing research in non-traditional fields including surgical innovation. This study aims to evaluate the relative value that pediatric surgeons involved in fellow selection place on innovation experience compared to traditional research.

A cross-sectional web-based survey of American Pediatric Surgical Association members involved in the selection of pediatric surgical fellows was conducted. Respondents reported their own innovation experience and were asked to identify valuable traits of applicants who completed an innovation fellowship. They rated the value of traditional research metrics including publications, presentations, and advanced degrees compared to patents and other innovation-related metrics. Comparisons were made between those with and without innovation experience with respect to gender, years in practice, and institutional role.

One hundred thirty respondents were involved in pediatric surgery fellow selection. Innovation work was felt to be equal to or more valuable than basic science by 75% of respondents (84% vs. clinical/outcomes, 93% vs. other non-traditional, 72% vs. other clinical fellowships). Commonly cited concerns included "fewer publications" (21%) and "preoccupation with financial reward" (19%). The most valuable innovation-related metrics were "developing a novel surgical procedure" (67%) and "developing a novel device" (58%). When asked if the respondent would advise a junior resident to pursue an innovation fellowship, 49% would, 9% would not, and 43% were unsure. Seventeen percent expressed concern for match success.

Innovation experience is generally viewed positively by pediatric surgeons involved in fellow selection. However, applicants and mentors would benefit from focusing on traditional academic outputs to ensure competitiveness.

Cross-sectional observational study.

III.