ArticleJCI insight2026
Comparing MD-PhD trainee experiences by disciplinary background.
Article in JCI insight, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
MD-PhD trainees increasingly pursue PhDs in social sciences, humanities, and public health (SSHPH). We characterized SSHPH trainee experiences and compared them with those of peers in traditional biomedical disciplines. From March to July 2023, a nationwide survey was sent to US MD-PhD programs that accept SSHPH trainees. Both SSHPH and non-SSHPH trainees participated in a survey focused on belonging, challenges and barriers, funding, and leadership recommendations. Quantitative data were analyzed using Fisher's exact tests, Student's t tests, and Wilcoxon's rank-sum tests. Qualitative comments were analyzed using a hybrid deductive-inductive approach. 234 MD-PhD trainees across the US participated, with 111 (47.4%) in SSHPH and 123 (52.6%) in non-SSHPH disciplines. Overall, there were many similarities between trainees across disciplinary groups, but small and consistent differences were noted among SSHPH trainees, including decreased belonging, difficulty identifying role models, and increased work requirements during graduate school. Respondents had 5 recommendations for MD-PhD leaders and 3 recommendations for the NIH, such as integrating SSHPH scholars into speaker series and incentivizing funding parity. Limitations include high percentages of missing responses. This exploratory study provides insights into SSHPH MD-PhD trainee experiences, highlighting similarities and unique needs that can be addressed within and across MD-PhD programs.
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.