Physician-scientists' perspectives on key factors, emotions and feelings about selecting and attending continuous...

Almost 40% of the Nobel-Prize-winning discoveries in medicine are made by physician-scientists, who are a driving force in the evolving medical, academic and research landscape. However, their training has few defined milestones. To be effective clinicians, educators and researchers, they need to maintain and hone skills, often via continuous professional development (CPD) activities covering different domains. They have recurrently been described as an endangered species. Yet, warnings and recommendations across several decades did not stop the declining number of physician-scientists, which is now a chronic issue. This is further exacerbated by a lack of resources and support, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic.

We administered a questionnaire called Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS-GEN) to get an initial emotional snapshot before performing individual semi-structured interviews with five physician-scientists in neurology working in the United Kingdom. We explored the key factors they balance before selecting CPD activities, along with their views on compulsory CPD events and assessments. We investigated their general feelings towards compulsory and non-compulsory CPD, how they felt the night before and the morning of the events, and the perceived consequences attending these have on their learning.

In our study, physician-scientists tend to choose training in their area of expertise but would enjoy exploring more if they had more time. The CPD choice was chiefly driven by speakers and topics, followed by learning needs. They disputed the utility of the current assessments, which are often seen as box-ticking exercises. While frustration, hostility and negative feelings were voiced for the compulsory ones, other CPD activities were welcomed with excitement, curiosity and a sense of adventure. Enthusiasm and excitement were felt the night before and the morning of the non-compulsory ones. CPD events were perceived to positively affect further learning, with the most immediate consequences being reading an article, networking or interacting with the speakers.

This is the first study exploring the key factors driving a group of physician-scientists while selecting CPD activities and investigating their feelings and emotions related to CPD attendance. More engaging and less box-ticking CPD should be on the cards, along with an adequate evaluation of these activities. It is essential to increase enthusiasm, which can facilitate engagement, and decrease frustration surrounding compulsory CPD activities. We still know too little about the role of emotions in learning, especially about CPD. Future studies should investigate the emotional side of learning across different career stages to restore the leaky pipeline and create a tailored environment with benefits for each of the three sides of the physician-scientist's identity: the clinical, the research, and the academic.