ArticleJCI insight2025
A study of MD-PhD pre-health advising identifies challenges to building a robust MD-PhD applicant pool.
Article in JCI insight, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Purpose, persistence, and progress: building the next generation of physician-scientists.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2026Article
- Science: our past, our present, and always our future.JCI insight · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
MD-PhD programs provide interdisciplinary training in medicine and research. Undergraduate pre-health advisors (PHAs) play a critical role in counseling prospective applicants, yet there have been no studies to our knowledge of MD-PhD pre-health advising. Here we surveyed 280 PHAs from US colleges and universities using both qualitative and quantitative measures that assessed their real-world advising behaviors as well as standardized evaluation of 1 of 2 fictional MD-PhD applicants, identical except for gender. We identified 3 factors that influenced advising behaviors: experience advising MD-PhD applicants, attitudes toward MD-PhD programs, and gender bias. Those PHAs with less experience and who held negative attitudes toward MD-PhD programs were less likely to initiate discussions about MD-PhD programs with qualified applicants and less likely to recommend the fictional applicants apply to MD-PhD programs. Finally, there was subtle gender bias that favored the male applicant. PHAs face challenges in advising MD-PhD applicants because there are relatively few MD-PHD applicants overall and there is a lack of resources to guide them. Addressing these challenges by strengthening collaborations with PHAs and providing comprehensive information about the value of and applicant qualifications for MD-PhD programs is crucial to enhancing MD-PhD advising, mitigating effects of bias, and expanding the pool of qualified applicants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.