BMJ 2004;329:789-792 (2 October), doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7469.789
Education and debate
Academic medicine: the evidence base
International Working Party to Promote and Revitalise Academic Medicine
Correspondence to: J P A Ioannidis, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina 45110, Greece jioannid{at}cc.uoi.gr
The International Campaign to Revitalise Academic Medicine recognises that an evidence based approach is important in discussing the problems of academic medicine. A preliminary exploration of the evidence on academic medicine has led to a research agenda for examining and proposing realistic solutions
Introduction
Much has been written about academic medicine and its ailments.
The International Campaign to Revitalise Academic Medicine (ICRAM)
immediately recognised the importance of an evidence based approach
to the ongoing discussion about academic medicine.
1 A task group
was developed to systematically collate and evaluate the available
evidence. We initially targeted major themes that were readily
identifiable as being important and for which data would be
reasonably straightforward to collect. The type of evidence
(box 1) differed for each research question. Here we present
a summary and future research agenda.
Where are the problems?
The
Oxford English Reference Dictionary defines academe as "the
world of learning," and academic as "scholarly: to do with learning."
Scholarship is encountered as a key principle of academic medicine,
w1 and it entails the discovery, integration, and application of
knowledge, and teaching.
w2 Academic medicine practitioners are
expected to demonstrate systematic and sustained scholarly effort,
with recognisable outputs valued by peers.
Many doctors teach (for example, over 40% of UK general practitioners host medical trainees2) or participate in research sporadically, and the role of such practitioners in the academic enterprise requires more study. Patients are also increasingly involved in clinical research,3 education,4 and service5 and are important academic allies. Finally, scholarship in fields related to health care and medicine is often pursued by non-physicians (nurses or laboratory scientists, for example) who may also encounter the "triple jeopardy" of trying to excel simultaneously in teaching, research, and clinical practice.6 However, policies addressing academic medicine careers typically do not expand the definition to include these scholars.7 Differing (or even conflicting) professional perspectives may prohibit recognition of common issues and lead to different groups fighting over available funds.8 Moreover, social and public health responsibilities and priorities of academic medicine may be different in affluent societies and in those with poor health systems.
Situation analyses are useful to identify barriers, failures, and successful applications in different settings. Most literature to date has selectively focused on developed Western countries, a minority in the global scale. We conducted an illustrative situation analysis for China (available from corresponding author). China has 2.2 million doctors, a third of the world's total number. Problems include the need for an increased academic workforce and structures to support continuing medical education and the production of high quality, licensed doctors; disproportionately low funding for clinical science research; the poor visibility of most domestic research; and an uncertain role for academic medicine in the changing finances of the Chinese health system.
Box 1: Analysing the evidence on academic medicine: types of evidence for preliminary themes
- Definition and problems of academic medicine: based on qualitative analysis of the previous expert literature and illustrative situation analyses
- Capacity: based on systematic review of quantitative non-randomised studies
- Research indicators: based on quantitative data from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI)
- Impact of industry: based on ISI data and systematic reviews
- Patient outcomes: based on systematic review of controlled studies
| |
Capacity
Academic medicine is struggling to keep pace with educational
demands or "capacity."
9
10 For example, in the United Kingdom
10-20% of posts designated for medical professors and senior
lecturers were recently noted to be vacant.
10 Much research
has explored requirements for doctors,
w3-w5 but little is known
about capacity requirements in academic medicine.
11 Often, predictions
are based on past trends, but evolving factors should also be
considered. Population demographics are changing in many countries,
with an increasing proportion of elderly people and a decreasing
birth rate. Service expectations, societal preferences, and
health needs evolve. Models of healthcare delivery may affect
training programmes and resource allocation.
Furthermore, demographics of academic physicians change. Many departments are faced with ageing facultiesfor example, a quarter of faculty members in the department of medicine of the University of Toronto will be over 65 by 2011.12 Gender inequalities are also prominent. In the United States, women comprise almost half of medical students (45%) and instructors (46%) but only 11% of full professors.13
w5 This inequality is worse in other countries.14 Academic career paths are notoriously individualistic and variable, posing additional challenges to model workforce requirements.15 Finally, changing research priorities such as the need to translate basic research to clinical applications16 may also affect these requirements.
What influences career choices in favour of academic medicine? Preliminary evidence suggests that stimulation received from learners, colleagues, and patients is important.17 Interestingly, in a recent survey of 399 academic family physicians in Canada only one respondent described having had a formal career path as an academic.9 The perceived status of academic careers can also influence career choice. Clinician educators are likely to be at lower rank than their colleagues in research.w6 w7 Clinical researchers complain that department chairs acknowledge their research, but offer no tangible support.w8 Finally, mentorship also influences career choice; lack of appropriate mentorship may have an important role in the paucity of female academics.w9 w10
Research indicators
Medical research is disproportionately dominated by a few wealthy
countries. There is a strong correlation between the number
of papers indexed by the Institute for Scientific Information
(ISI)
18 and the gross domestic product,
w11 and between the number
of citations and GDP (
fig 1). No country with an adjusted GDP
under $70bn received more than 15 000 citations to clinical
medicine papers in the past decade (less than a thousandth of
the total number of citations). The same picture applies in
related life sciences (data available from contributing author).
These indicators are objective, but provide a partial picture.
Lack of research infrastructure and funding, publication bias,
lack of recognition for some applied research disciplines, and
poor access to information in the developing world must be considered.
Much research outside Western countries appears in domestic
journals available only locally. For the top 10 academic hospitals
in China, 18 articles appear in domestic journals for every
one in a journal indexed by ISI.
View larger version (41K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig 1 (top) Relation between the number of clinical medicine papers indexed by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) 1994-2004 and the gross domestic product (GDP) adjusted for purchasing power parity; (bottom) relation between the number of citations to these papers listed by ISI and GDP adjusted for purchasing power parity18
|
|
Although most burden of disease is carried by developing countries, clinical research is done where the money is, not where the investigation should be done.w12 An estimated 94% of the high impact scientific potential of humankind is lost because of various global inequities and squandered opportunities.w13 w14 Brain drain further diminishes the academic potential of poor countries. Brain drain consists of both external migration and internal migration of academics to organisations that fail public health priorities in host countries.
Furthermore, doctors have a shrinking presence in the broader life sciences. Analysis of the most cited scientists in the past two decades in life sciences shows that the representation of doctors among those who are currently 55 or younger has decreased sharply compared with older generations.w15 They still represent approximately 90% of most cited scientists in clinical medicine, the last domain where their research influence remains strong (fig 2).
View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig 2 Proportion with medical degree among the 250 most cited scientists in clinical medicine, immunology, microbiology, molecular biology, and pharmacology, 1981-2000w15
|
|
Impact of industry
The pharmaceutical, medical device, and biotechnology industries
have an increasing impact on academic medicine and its products.
Twenty six of the 100 most cited clinical medicine papers in
the past decade have included authors with industry affiliations
(see table A on bmj.com). A similar proportion is seen in most
life sciences except for social sciences and psychology/psychiatry.
18 All of the 14 most cited randomised trials received support
from industry, usually with no support from any other source,
and eight included industry authors (see table B on bmj.com).
The most influential clinical research is not conducted under
the auspices of the public sector. Moreover, industry sponsored
studies are often disproportionately publicised by the media.
Box 2: A comprehensive research agenda for evidence on academic medicine
Problems: what are the problems with academic medicine across different settings and countries?
Capacity: what factors influence career choice and academic medicine capacity?
Indicators: what are reliable indicators of quality, impact and outcomes in academic medicine research, teaching and service?
Funders: what are the relations between academic medicine and its funders, in particular the pharmaceutical industry, and how should they be optimally regulated?
Patients: does academic medicine work for patients?
| |
Summary points
Evidence in academic medicine is fragmented, even though much has been written
Evidence on the status and problems of academic medicine may come from diverse sources and requires both qualitative and quantitative synthesis of information
Major issues include capacity and factors that influence career choice in academic medicine, indicators of research and other aspects of the quality and impact of the academic enterprise, and the relation of academe to influential funders, industry in particular
Preliminary analysis of the available evidence shows major problems in all these domains
Whether academic medicine works for the benefit of patients needs to be determined
| |
Two systematic reviews have found that studies funded by industry report findings favourable to sponsors more often than non-industry funded studies (odds ratio 3.6 (95% confidence interval 2.6 to 4.9) and 4.1 (3.0 to 5.5)), but the quality of industry funded studies was comparable to non-industry studies.w16 w17 Industry funded investigations used inactive controls (placebo or no treatment) more frequently, increasing the likelihood of "positive" results.
Prioritisation and impact of clinical research is dictated primarily by commercial interests. Academic medicine (and indeed the public) has lost control of the research agenda. Furthermore, this grave situation pertains to developed countries with mostly well regulated environments. The relation between industry and academics in developing countries is probably far worse, and inadequately regulated.
Does academic medicine eventually benefit or harm patients?
There also seems to be a need to examine whether patients' outcomes
are improved by academic medicine. Subjective outcomes (satisfaction,
preferences, perceptions, and roles) as well as objective outcomes
(disease) are important. Preliminary searches indicate that
most evidence is non-randomised, and confounding is a major
problem. The available evidence pertains to diverse conditions,
such as general care, acute and chronic critical care, surgery,
and obstetrics,
19-23 but most data again seem to come from developed
countries.
These questions may be provocative, but they are appropriate:
- What is the evidence that academic medicine benefits patients?
- Is there evidence that academic medicine may harm patients?
- Could all health care be done in non-academic clinical settings?
- Is academic medicine useful for patient outcomes globally, under select circumstances, for specific healthcare problems, in specific countries, or never?
- Does academic medicine work?
Conclusion
Academic medicine needs evidence to guide its future direction.
24 This preliminary analysis has identified areas where further
systematic efforts are indicated (box 2) and we welcome independent
researchers to join us.
Members of the working party, web references, and two tables of data on most cited authors and trials are on bmj.com
Contributors: All members of the working party (see bmj.com) contributed to the conception and content of the paper, contributed to drafting, and approved the final version for submission. John P A Ioannidis is guarantor.
Competing interests: None declared.
References
- International Working Party to Promote and Revitalise Academic Medicine. ICRAM (the International Campaign to Revitalise Academic Medicine): agenda setting. BMJ
2004;329: 787-9.[Free Full Text]
- Howe A, Baker, M, Field, S, Pringle, M. Special non-clinical interestsGPs in education, research, and management Br J Gen Pract
2003;53: 438-40.[ISI][Medline]
- Boote J, Telford R, Cooper C. Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda. Health Policy
2002;61: 213-36.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
- Spencer J, Blackmore D, Heard S, McCrorie P, McHaffie D, Scherpbier A, et al. Patient oriented learning: a review of the role of the patient in the education of medical students. Med Educ
2000;34: 851-7.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
- Department of Health. Involving patients and the public in healthcare: a discussion document. London: DoH, 2001.
- Researcher, clinician, or teacher? [editorial] Lancet
2001;357: 1543.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
- Academy of Medical Sciences. Implementing the clinician scientist scheme. TAMS: London, 2002.
- Gross CP, Anderson GF, Powe NR. The relation between funding by the National Institutes of Health and the burden of disease. N Engl J Med
1999;340: 1881-7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Gray J, Armstrong P. Academic health leadership: looking to the future. Clin Invest Med
2003;26: 315-26.[ISI][Medline]
- Council of Heads of Medical Schools. A survey of clinical academic staffing levels in UK medical and dental schools. London: CHMS, 2001. www.chms.ac.uk/chms.pdf (accessed 14 Sep 2004).
- Barer M, Kazanjian A, Pagliaccia N, Ruedy J, Webber WA. A profile of academic physicians in British Columbia. Acad Med
1989;64: 524-32.[ISI][Medline]
- Phillipson EA. Enhancing faculty renewal and development to address the shortage of physician supply. Medinews
2001;13: 1-5.
- Danic A, Hadzibegovic I, Loparic M. Status of women in small academic medical communities: case study of the Zagreb University School of Medicine. Croat Med J
2003;44: 32-5.[ISI][Medline]
- DeAngelis C. Professors not professing. JAMA
2004;292: 1060-1.[Free Full Text]
- Ash AS, Carr PL, Goldstein R, Friedman RH. Compensation and advancement of women in academic medicine: is there equity? Ann Intern Med
2004;141: 205-12.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Ioannidis JP. Materializing research promises: opportunities, priorities and conflicts in translational medicine. J Transl Med
2004;2: 5.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Simpson DE, Rediske VA, Beecher A, Bower D, Meuer L, Lawrence S, et al. Understanding the careers of physician educators in family medicine. Acad Med
2001;76: 259-65.[ISI][Medline]
- Institute for Scientific Information. Web of knowledge: essential science indicators.
http://www.isinet.net (accessed 6 July 2004).
- Garber AM, Fuchs VR, Silverman JF. Case mix, costs, and outcomes. Differences between faculty and community services in a university hospital. N Engl J Med
1984;310: 1231-7.[Abstract]
- Cooper GS, Chak A, Harper DL, Pine M, Rosenthal GE. Care of patients with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage in academic medical centers: a community-based comparison. Gastroenterology
1996;111: 385-90.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
- Bach PB, Carson SS, Leff A. Outcomes and resource utilization for patients with prolonged critical illness managed by university-based or community-based subspecialists. Am J Respir Crit Care Med
1998;158: 1410-5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Dimick JB, Cowan JA Jr, Colletti LM, Upchurch GR Jr. Hospital teaching status and outcomes of complex surgical procedures in the United States. Arch Surg
2004;139: 137-41.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Garcia FA, Miller HB, Huggins GR, Gordon TA. Effect of academic affiliation and obstetric volume on clinical outcome and cost of childbirth. Obstet Gynecol
2001;97: 567-76.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Gamulin S. Academic approach to academic medicine. Croat Med J
2004;45: 245-7.[ISI][Medline]
CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati What's this?
Related Articles
-
Origin and funding of the most frequently cited papers in medicine: database analysis
- Nikolaos A Patsopoulos, John P A Ioannidis, and Apostolos A Analatos
BMJ 2006 332: 1061-1064.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
-
How far is the future?
- Zulma Ortiz
BMJ 2005 331: 106-107.
[Extract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
-
Academic medicine needs a global agenda
BMJ 2004 329: 0.
[Full Text]
-
Who cares about academic medicine?
- Jocalyn Clark and Peter Tugwell
BMJ 2004 329: 751-752.
[Extract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Patsopoulos, N. A, Ioannidis, J. P A, Analatos, A. A
(2006). Origin and funding of the most frequently cited papers in medicine: database analysis. BMJ
332: 1061-1064
[Abstract]
[Full text]
-
Ortiz, Z.
(2005). How far is the future?. BMJ
331: 106-107
[Full text]
-
Clark, J., Tugwell, P.
(2004). Who cares about academic medicine?. BMJ
329: 751-752
[Full text]
-
International Working Party to Promote and Revital,
(2004). ICRAM (the International Campaign to Revitalise Academic Medicine): agenda setting. BMJ
329: 787-789
[Full text]
Rapid Responses:
Read all Rapid Responses
- Challenges in revitalising and restoring academic medicine
- Hilary Humphreys
bmj.com, 20 Oct 2004
[Full text]