Exploration and Practice of the First Clinical Medical Postdoctoral Program in China: Retrospective, Nonrandomized, Controlled Study.

Background: To further optimize the clinical and scientific training of high-level doctoral graduates, the Office of the National Postdoctoral Administration launched a clinical postdoctoral program in 2015. This program provides postdoctoral clinical medicine trainees with 3 years of individualized, intensive training through a full mentorship system, interdisciplinary collaboration, and a multiteam teaching platform. Objective: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of this novel clinical postdoctoral training program against conventional doctoral training, using specific, quantifiable metrics. Our primary research questions were as follows: (1) Does the program lead to superior clinical performance, as measured by theoretical examination scores and Case Mix Index (CMI)? (2) Does it enhance scientific research productivity, measured by publication output and success rates in procuring provincial and national NSFC (National Natural Science Foundation of China) funds? (3) Are there differences in teaching capacity and overall career advancement? Methods: This was a retrospective, nonrandomized controlled study. Doctoral graduates who entered the hospital for standardized residency training between 2015 and 2019 were enrolled and divided into a postdoctoral training group (n=23) and a doctoral training group (n=106). Results: The postdoctoral group demonstrated significantly higher clinical performance, as indicated by higher theoretical examination scores (445.70, SD 14.67 vs 435.12, SD 15.29; P=.003) and a higher median CMI (1.14 vs 0.92, P=.03), reflecting greater ability to manage complex clinical cases. In terms of research productivity, the postdoctoral group outperformed the doctoral group in the number of published papers (2.35, SD 2.39 vs 1.11, SD 1.47; P=.002) and the proportion of approved provincial-level NSFC projects (47.83% vs 17.00%, P=.001). However, no significant differences were observed in the acquisition of national-level NSFC funding (60.87% vs 44.34%, P=.15), teaching capacity (0.22, SD 0.518 vs 0.10, SD 0.306; P=.16), or overall competency indicators such as the rate of professional title promotion (100% vs 94.34%, P=.53) and the attainment of a master's-degree supervisor qualification (13.04% vs 5.67%, P=.42). Conclusions: The clinical postdoctoral training program demonstrates promising effectiveness in enhancing both clinical performance and scientific innovation among medical trainees. These findings support the value of integrating clinical practice, research, and mentorship in advanced postgraduate medical education and suggest that this model is worth promoting in more medical institutions.