Research-Track Programs for Residents in Psychiatry: A Review of Literature and a Report of 3 Canadian Experiences. (May 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bhat, Venkat; Leong, KaWai; Lee, Jonathan; Voineskos, Daphne; Daskalakis, Zafiris J; Lam, Raymond W; Jollant, Fabrice
• Is Part Of: Canadian journal of psychiatry =. Volume 59:Number 5(2014)
• Page Start: 268
• Page End: 275
• Publication Date: 2014-05
• Subjects: research-track -- clinician scientists -- teaching -- psychiatry -- residents -- postgraduate training; Psychiatry -- Periodicals; Psychiatry -- Canada -- Periodicals; 616.8900971
• DOI: 10.1177/070674371405900506
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0706-7437

Abstract

Objectives: Clinician-scientists occupy an interesting position at the interface between science and care, and have a role to play in bridging the 2 valleys between fundamental and clinical research, and between clinical research and clinical practice. However, research training during medical residency for future clinician scientists is an important but challenging process. Our article, written by residents and directors of research-track (RT) programs, aimed at reviewing literature on RT programs for residents, and describing the organization of RT programs at 3 Canadian universities (the University of British Columbia, the University of Toronto, and McGill University). Methods: A systematic MEDLINE search was conducted for the review section. Psychiatry program directors in Canada were also contacted to provide information about potential RT programs. Results: Twenty articles were related to resident RT programs in medicine, including 6 in psychiatry. Moreover, 5 out of 16 Canadian programs were found to offer a formal RT program, of which 3 are described here. Most reviewed articles described the program organization, while only one provided an outcome assessment with evidence of increased scholarly activity following RT implementation. Conclusions: Our article sheds light on postgraduate programs aiming at facilitating the dual training of future clinician-scientists, and developed during the last 10 years. It also highlights the lack of outcome assessment, and the paucity of guidelines to organize these programs in relation to the national requirements.