Emergency medicine residency pathways for MD/PhD trainees: A national cross‐sectional study of physician‐scientist training programs

Abstract

Background

Combined clinical and research training is common in residency programs outside emergency medicine (EM), and these pathways are particularly valuable for combined MD/PhD graduates planning to pursue a career as a physician‐scientist. However, EM departments may not know what resources to provide these trainees during residency to create research‐focused, productive, future faculty, and trainees may not know which programs support their goal of becoming a physician‐scientist in EM. The objective of this study was to describe research training and resources available to MD/PhD graduates in EM residency training with a focus on dedicated research pathways.

Methods

This study was a cross‐sectional inventory conducted through an electronic survey of EM residency program directors. We sought to identify dedicated MD/PhD research training pathways, with a focus on both resources and training priorities. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize survey responses.

Results

We collected 192 survey responses (69.6% response rate). Among respondents, 41 programs (21.4%) offered a research pathway/track, 52 (27.4%) offered a research fellowship, 22 (11.5%) offered both a residency research pathway/track and a research fellowship, and two (1.0%) offered a dedicated EM physician‐scientist training pathway. Most programs considered research a priority and were enthusiastic about interviewing applicants planning a research career, but recruitment of physician‐scientist applicants was not generally prioritized.

Conclusions

Some EM residency programs offer combined clinical and mentored research training for prospective physician‐scientists, and nearly all residency programs considered research important. Future work will focus on improving the EM physician‐scientist pipeline by optimizing pathways available to trainees during residency and fellowship.

INTRODUCTION

Emergency medicine (EM) was officially recognized as a clinical specialty in 1979, ¹ and currently it has the lowest proportion of physician‐scientists and National Institutes of Health (NIH)‐funded researchers of any clinical specialty. ² EM also ranked last in NIH‐funded Career Development Awards—an important metric for a robust physician‐scientist pipeline. ³ In 2021, a task force of the Academy of Academic Chairs in Emergency Medicine (AACEM), Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM), American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), and American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) published the Emergency Medicine 2030 Research Strategic Goals, focused principally on enhancing the pipeline of physician‐scientists in the specialty of EM. The task force recommended national, institutional, and individual strategies to increase EM research, and seven of these strategies focused on recruiting research‐interested students into EM and developing improved research training pathways within the specialty. ²

Among all physicians who received their first NIH‐funded R01 award in 2020, 38% were graduates of combined MD/PhD programs and many were also graduates of NIH‐funded T32 Medical Scientist Training Programs (MSTP). ⁴ This combined‐degree pathway has been a valuable source of clinician‐researchers, and many specialties outside of EM have developed dedicated research‐focused residency pathways to enhance the transition of these graduates into faculty positions as physician‐scientists. ⁴ , ⁵ These pathways, often called physician‐scientist training pathways (PSTP), typically combine longitudinal research training and mentorship with residency and fellowship clinical training, and in some cases these pathways alter clinical training requirements. ⁴ , ⁵

According to the annual Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) report, MD/PhD graduates represented 3.4% of all residents in 2017. ⁶ Of all MD/PhD graduates, only 1.1% were EM residents in 2017, and this decreased to 0.8% in 2019. ⁷ Child neurology, radiation oncology, pathology, vascular surgery, and interventional radiology had the highest representation of MD/PhD graduates, while EM and family medicine had the lowest. While EM may be underrepresented in physician‐scientists, a similar pattern has been observed in orthopedics, ⁸ general surgery, ⁹ and anesthesia. ¹⁰ According to predictions, the current number of MD/PhD graduates is insufficient to maintain current levels of physician‐scientists in the workforce. ¹¹

Even among EM‐trained MD/PhD graduates, many do not pursue a career as a physician‐scientist, with nearly half of MD/PhD graduates in EM pursuing nonacademic careers. ¹² Only 19% of EM MD/PhD graduates dedicate most of their professional effort to biomedical research compared with over 50% in internal medicine, neurology, pediatric neurology, and pediatrics. ¹¹ Based on these data, MD/PhD graduates planning to pursue a research career are choosing specialties outside EM, and this may represent an underdeveloped pathway for recruiting physician‐scientists into the specialty of EM. Scholarly tracks during EM residency training have been developed and are successful at many institutions to develop academic careers, ¹³ but these tracks have not increased recruitment of MD/PhD residents into EM. ⁶ , ⁷ Identifying EM pathways for MD/PhD graduates to successfully transition into independent researchers is important to guide program directors on how to develop these pathways, and also to guide applicants on how identify promising training options. ¹⁴ , ¹⁵ Additional strategies to improve pathways for research‐committed medical school graduates could be a valuable approach to increasing funded EM physician‐scientists.

To better understand dedicated training opportunities for MD/PhD graduates within EM residencies, we conducted a cross‐sectional inventory of dedicated residency research career training in EM. The objective of this study was to describe research training in EM residency programs, with a focus on formal research tracks and support for graduates of MD/PhD programs. We also sought to understand how prior research training and credentials were used in residency recruiting and research training support.

METHODS

We conducted a cross‐sectional electronic survey of EM residency program directors between June 2022 and July 2023. Our survey was delivered electronically by email to program directors, research directors, and program coordinators in sequential preference, and we followed up individually by email and telephone to encourage participation. Data were collected using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) tool (Vanderbilt University). This study was determined by our local institutional review board not to constitute human subjects research, and our results are reported consistent with the Consensus‐Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS). ¹⁶ Residency programs identified in this article separately gave their permission to be identified.

Survey development

A steering committee of four experts in residency research training developed our 11‐question tool to inventory both program‐specific resources and institutional research resources available to EM residents. Questions also sought to characterize perceptions related to training MD/PhD graduates. This tool included both dichotomous questions about resource availability and Likert‐style responses about priorities, and it was intentionally designed to focus on MD/PhD graduates rather than characterizing all research resources available to EM residents. We used the model of PSTP programs in other specialties as an exemplar of the resources we were trying to capture, but we maintained a broad perspective to capture creative approaches. The draft survey was shared with other experts in the field and refined based on feedback, and it was reviewed and approved by both the SAEM Research Committee and the SAEM Board of Directors. The survey is included in Figure S1.

Study population

We used the SAEM Residency Program Director email list and the Emergency Medicine Residents’ Association (EMRA) Match Database to identify EM residency program directors to receive the survey starting in June 2022. We excluded any program that lost accreditation during the data collection period. We verified contact information using the SAEM Residency Directory, official program website, and social media accounts. We contacted programs up to four times by a combination of email and telephone to maximize response over the course of the study period. For programs that submitted multiple surveys, only the most recent survey was included in the analysis.

Definitions

For the purposes of our survey, we used the following definitions, which were also provided to survey respondents:

Research‐focused residency pathway/track

This is defined as a pathway or track within residency for trainees dedicated to a career as a physician‐scientist. This type of pathway/track is different than a research curriculum or research requirement in which all residents participate, as the goal is to prepare a resident for a long‐term research career. In many cases, this type of program has its own website, specific goals and objectives, and an annotation on the graduation certificate. Residents who engage in this pathway/track may have different training activities and responsibilities than other residents. Applicants may seek admission to this track either before residency matriculation or after starting residency, and it may be open either only to applicants with a prior PhD or to a broader range of applicants. It may or may not extend the residency duration beyond the standard number of clinical training years in the categorical residency program.

Research fellowship

This is defined as a dedicated research training/mentorship program that is started after residency graduation (i.e., not completed during a residency program). We did not differentiate between SAEM‐approved research fellowships and other research fellowships.

PSTP

This is defined as a combined residency/fellowship/postdoctoral research training pathway or program that is typically available to graduates of an MD/PhD program or MSTP. PSTP programs combine concurrent clinical and research training, and typically incoming residents have a formal commitment to clinical or research fellowship training as part of the pathway. These programs merge traditional residency training with mentored research training and extend beyond the standard number of clinical training years in the categorical residency program. Although many PSTP programs are funded by federal training grants, the source of program funding was not collected for the purposes of this study.

Data analysis

We tabulated the responses to survey questions and reported the results descriptively. To assess nonresponse bias, we compared characteristics of responding and nonresponding programs using data publicly available on the EMRA Match Database and/or institutional websites. Differences were calculated as Cohen d or h statistics to assess meaningful differences of a standardized mean difference in proportions (categorical variables) and means (continuous variables), and we considered differences of greater than 0.1 to be meaningful. Statistical analysis was performed in SAS 9.4.

RESULTS

Overview

Of 276 accredited EM residency programs invited to participate, 192 surveys were completed (69.6% response rate; Table 1). Among respondents, 146 (76.0%) were 3‐year residency programs, 94 (48.9%) had an MD/PhD or MSTP program at the affiliated medical school, and 39 (20.0%) had principal investigators with current NIH research funding in the department of EM as of 2022. ¹⁸ Responding programs were more likely to be 4‐year residency programs, located in an urban area, affiliated with a university, and have current NIH funding. Residency programs at institutions with MD/PhD or MSTP programs were also more likely to respond (Table S1).

TABLE 1.

Descriptive statistics of survey respondents.

Metric	n (%)
Program length
3‐year	146 (76.0)
4‐year	45 (23.4)
N/A	1 (0.5)
Geographical location
Rural	7 (23.4)
Urban	185 (23.4)
Primary training site
Community	79 (41.2)
County	25 (13.0)
University	81 (42.2)
Unknown	7 (3.7)
Available PGY‐1 positions	10.9 (±4.0)
MSTP or MD/PhD availability a	112 (58.3)
PSTP availability at institution a	27 (14.1)
NIH funding (FY 2022) b	39 (20.3)

Note: Data are reported as n (%) or mean (±SD).

Abbreviations: AAMC, Association of American Medical Colleges; FY, fiscal year; MSTP, medical scientist training program; N/A, not applicable; NIH, National Institutes of Health; PGY, postgraduate year; PSTP, physician‐scientist training pathway.

^a Based on survey answers, institutional websites, and AAMC. ¹⁷

^b 2022 Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research. ¹⁸

Program descriptions

A total of 41 (21.0%) programs offered a research‐focused pathway/track during residency. Of these programs, 25% admitted residents to the pathway/track before or at the start of residency matriculation. Three (7.3%) of the 41 programs included training beyond the categorical residency to complete the research pathway/track. Two programs were self‐classified as EM PSTP, and one of these programs extended research training beyond the categorical residency.

Fifty‐two of the 192 (27.1%) responding residency programs offered a research fellowship. Within the past 5 years, 10 of the 52 fellowship programs (19.2%) recruited fellows with prior PhD training. Twenty‐two (11.5%) responding institutions offered both a research‐focused pathway/track and a research fellowship (Table 2). Two programs offered a research‐focused pathway with the structure of an EM PSTP: Northwestern University and the University of Iowa. Two additional institutions noted specific pathways available that may also be EM PSTP‐equivalent: Yale New Haven Medical Center offers the Yale Emergency Scholars program, a 4 + 1 pathway where residents have integrated research years during postgraduate year (PGY)‐3 and PGY‐4, and nearly all obtain a master of health sciences at the end of PGY‐5; and Johns Hopkins University offers 50% academic time in the PGY‐4 year for an integrated research fellowship.

TABLE 2.

Survey responses regarding research pathway/track, fellowship, PSTP, and MSTP existence at each institution.

1. Do you currently have a research‐focused pathway or track within your EM residency program? (n = 192)	Yes	No
	41 (21.0)	151 (79.0)
1A. Are residents typically selected for the research‐focused pathway/track prior to starting residency, or do they join the pathway after starting residency? (n = 39)	After	Prior	Either/both
	29 (74.4)	3 (7.7)	7 (17.9)
1B. Does participation in the research‐focused pathway/track lead to an extended period of residency training (i.e., beyond the standard duration of training for other residents)? (n = 38)	Yes	No	Sometimes
	2 (5.3)	35 (92.1)	1 (2.6)
1C. Does your program's research‐focused pathway have the structure of a PSTP? Please note that this is a pathway usually aligned with the doctoral MSTP. (n = 41)	Yes	No	Don't know
	2 (4.9)	32 (78.1)	7 (17.0)
2. Do you currently offer an EM research fellowship at your site? (n = 190)	Yes	No
	52 (27.4)	138 (72.6)
2A. Within the last 5 years, has your EM research fellowship recruited any research fellows with prior PhD training? (n = 50)	Yes	No	Don't know
	10 (20)	31 (62.0)	9 (18)
3. Does your institution (medical school) sponsor a medical scientist training pathway (MSTP, MD/PhD combined training)? (n = 192)	Yes	No	Don't know
	88 (45.8)	71 (40.0)	33 (17.2)
4. Does your institution currently sponsor a physician‐scientist training pathway (PSTP), a formal program combining clinical residency training and research training? Please indicate “yes” even if your institution's program exists outside of the EM residency program? (n = 192)	Yes	No	Don't know
	25 (13.0)	111 (57.8)	56 (29.2)
5. Within the last 5 years, how many new residents within your EM residency had prior PhD research training? (n = 191)	0 or don't know	1–3	≥4
	121 (63.4)	64 (33.5)	6 (3.1)
5A. As far as you are aware, did any of these EM residents with prior PhD research training plan to continue engaging in a research career after residency graduation? (n = 71)	Yes	No	Don't know
	37 (52.1)	20 (28.2)	14 (19.7)

Note: Data are reported as n (%).

Abbreviations: MSTP, medical scientist training program; PSTP, physician‐scientist training pathway.

Institutional resources and recruitment of trainees with prior PhD training

Eighty‐eight programs (45.8%) reported that they had an MSTP or MD/PhD program at their affiliated medical school (Table 2). Of those that reported “no” or “don't know” to this prompt, an additional 18 institutions were listed as having active MD/PhD programs by the AAMC, making the total count 112 (58.3%). ¹⁷ Twenty‐five (13.0%) programs offered a PSTP (nearly all in a specialty other than EM) at their institution (Table 2); of those, only two (8.0%) offered an EM‐specific PSTP. Within the past 5 years, 64 programs (33.5%) had matriculated between one and three residents with prior PhD training, and six programs (3.1%) had at least four current residents with prior PhD training. Among programs that had graduated residents with prior PhD training, 37 (52.1%) responded that these residents had gone on to continue a research career after graduation (Table 2).

Most responding EM residency programs (172/192, 89.6%) reported that they approved elective time to be used for research activities, and 158/192 (82.3%) assist in identifying a career research mentor. A total of 63/192 (32.8%) offered scheduling flexibility to work with an existing research group on campus. Twenty‐eight percent of programs reported they would provide all three: approve elective time for research, help identify a research mentor, and offer scheduling flexibility to work with a research group. Nineteen programs entered free‐text answers regarding additional resources offered to residents (Table 3), most of which (12/19) focused on funding and/or sponsorship.

TABLE 3.

Resources offered to research‐interested residents.

If your residency had a resident who planned to pursue a career as a physician‐scientist, which of the following would your program likely provide? Select all that apply (n = 192)	n (%)
Scheduling flexibility (to work with existing group on campus)	63 (32.8)
Approve elective time to be used for research activities	172 (89.6)
Assistance in identifying a career research mentor	158 (82.3)
All of the above	53 (27.6)
Other a	19 (9.9)
None	3 (1.6)

^a Nineteen respondents used the free‐text field to document other possible resources. Themes included research funding/sponsorship (12/19), travel funding for conferences (5/19), statisticians/administrative support/research division support (4/19), coursework or certifications (2/19), student labor support (1/19), grant writers (1/19), and fellowship priority (1/19). Respondents may be represented in multiple rows.

Attitudes toward research and physician‐scientist applicants

Most respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their EM department felt research was important (n = 164/190, 86.3%; Figure 1) and that they were excited to interview residents with a passion for research (n = 137/191, 71.7%). Over half of the EM residency programs agreed they were a “great fit” for research‐interested residents (n = 106/190, 55.8%). Of these 106 EM residency programs, 33 (31.1%) offered a research‐focused residency track, 43 (40.6%) offered a research fellowship, 18 (17.0%) offered both a research track and fellowship, and two (1.9%) offered an EM PSTP.

FIGURE 1.

Prioritization of research and research‐focused residents by EM residency programs. *For this question, “strongly agree” was further defined as “I would strongly prioritize these applicants over other applicants.” “Strongly disagree” was further defined as “I would consider these applicants just like any other applicant.”

Twenty percent (n = 37/189) agreed or strongly agreed that they would prioritize recruitment of physician‐scientists. Among these 37 EM residency programs, 14 (37.8%) offered research‐focused residency tracks, 17 (45.9%) offered research fellowship opportunities, nine (24.3%) offered both a research‐focused residency track and research fellowship, and two (2.7%) offered an EM‐specific PSTP. Twenty‐two EM residency programs (Table 3) had either (1) both a research track and a research fellowship or (2) an EM‐specific PSTP.

DISCUSSION

In our inventory of EM residency programs, we found that a number of institutions have developed focused tracks and fellowship programs intended to provide career‐level research training and mentorship, but these focused training opportunities represented a minority of EM residency training programs. Few programs specifically recruited MD/PhD graduates, and many programs who have trained MD/PhD residents have residency graduates no longer participating in research. Despite the limited availability of these dedicated research programs, program directors are generally supportive of research training and careers. Overall, our findings suggest that EM training programs have opportunities to develop additional pathways to recruit, retain, and develop physician‐scientists from the cadre of MD/PhD graduates. Maintaining credible EM‐focused career pathways for physician‐scientists remains a critical goal to achieving targets for EM research growth and expansion, ² and the lack of these supportive transition programs may encourage MD/PhD graduates to pursue training in other specialties. For example, according to the Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research (BRIMR) Rankings of NIH funding in 2022, 41 EM departments across the United States were receiving an approximate total of $101M in funding, compared to $5.175B for internal medicine, $1.142B for pediatrics, $1.151B for psychiatry, $786M for pathology, and $1.001B for neurology. ¹⁸ These specialties corresponded to the top 5 specialties for MD/PhD graduates by number of active residents, whereas EM ranked No. 14 in the same year. ⁷

PSTP pathways are a growing option for MD/PhD graduates across specialties, and applicants strongly value the structured time and mentorship that PSTP pathways provide. ⁵ , ¹⁹ Outreach to research‐oriented medical students and development of PSTP pathways was recently recommended by a task force of the Anesthesia Research Council as a strategy to increase research productivity in anesthesiology—based mainly on the success of similar initiatives in internal medicine, surgery, pathology, and psychiatry. ³ Diverse PSTP programs in the U.S. are being structured to serve as a bridge between MD/PhD training and career independence, and these programs offer benefits to both trainees and research funding organizations. ²⁰

EM presents a unique opportunity for developing competitive PSTP pathways that transition into successful research careers because of the feasibility of combining the EM clinical schedule with dedicated research time, the diversity of federal funding sources that apply to acute care medicine research, and parity in salary and work‐hours factors with other clinical specialties. Shift work can facilitate laboratory work by increasing availability of days and evenings, enabling longitudinal experiments, and continuing high‐level research during residency. Further, the available infrastructure in institutional PSTP programs can be applied in EM, and protecting time for research fellows and clinical faculty to expand research training remains possible in many institutions. Formal alignment with MD/PhD programs and institutional PSTP programs would provide a scientific community, diverse mentorship, institutional research culture, and complementary funding pathways that can accelerate training opportunities in EM‐focused funded research programs. Expanding formal PSTP programs in EM and expanding mentorship opportunities for EM faculty to students in MD/PhD programs could serve as a substantial recruiting tool to help bring some of the best future physician‐scientists into EM after medical school graduation.

Our survey results show that a minority of EM residency programs offer a research track during residency or a research fellowship after residency, and formal PSTP in EM is rare. A comparative experience to PSTP could be defined as a research track followed by a research fellowship, for a 3‐ to 6‐year experience with dedicated mentored research time. Using this metric, we identified 22 EM residency programs listed in Table 4 that may be ideal for the physician‐scientist applicant. Of these 22 programs, two offer official PSTP tracks in EM, while an additional 16 are located at universities with PSTPs in other specialties. These institutions may have an opportunity to expand PSTP options in EM, as the necessary infrastructure and organizational framework may already be available. If utilizing preexisting PSTP infrastructure were not feasible, residency programs could consider matriculating applicants into a combined research track and research fellowship by recruiting highly qualified trainees, similar to established PSTP recruitment practices in other specialties. ²¹ This structure can enable longitudinal mentorship, a larger mentored project, integration into an existing research group, and some general EM research training, but such a commitment requires resources and faculty champions (in many cases, both within and outside EM).

TABLE 4.

Programs with research focused tracks, research fellowships, and PSTP.

Residency program	Research track	Research fellowship	Specialty‐specific PSTP a	Institutional PSTP b	EM PSTP	State
Albert Einstein College of Medicine–Montefiore	✔	✔				NY
Brown University	✔	✔	✔			RI
Denver Health Medical Center	✔	✔	✔			CO
Duke University Medical Center	✔	✔	✔			NC
Johns Hopkins University	✔	✔	✔	✔		MD
Los Angeles General + University of Southern California	✔	✔	✔			CA
Northwestern University	✔	✔		✔	✔	IL
Ohio State University Medical Center	✔	✔	✔			OH
Oregon Health and Science University	✔	✔	✔			OR
University of Arizona	✔	✔				AZ
University of Arizona—South Campus	✔	✔				AZ
University of California—San Francisco	✔	✔	✔			CA
University of Cincinnati College of Medicine	✔	✔	✔			OH
University of Iowa	✔	✔		✔	✔	IA
University of Michigan	✔	✔	✔			MI
University of North Carolina	✔	✔		✔		NC
University of Rochester	✔	✔	✔			NY
University of Virginia Health	✔	✔				VA
University of Washington	✔	✔	✔			WA
Wake Forest University	✔	✔	✔			NC
Washington University in St. Louis	✔	✔	✔			MO
Yale New Haven Medical Center	✔	✔	✔			CT

Abbreviation: PSTP, physician scientist training pathway.

^a Available at the residency institution. Multiple PSTP tracks in separate specialties may be available at listed institutions at time of publication.

^b For the purposes of this article, defined as having an interdepartmental office that accepts residency and/or fellow applicants from a broad pool of specialties.

So where do we go from here? Even though only 22 programs currently have a structure for dedicated EM physician‐scientist training, program directors were overall supportive of research training and many had established procedures to help research‐interested residents achieve their professional goals. We identified 106 EM residency programs at institutions with combined MD/PhD training programs. EM departments seeking to expand or accelerate their research programs may wish to connect with this community of home‐grown MD/PhD trainees or likewise may consider recruiting graduates of these programs. We also identified 25 total EM programs at institutions with PSTP pathways outside EM, suggesting that infrastructure exists to bolster integrated EM research and residency training using models from other disciplines. The AAMC has listed six non‐EM specialties that sponsor PTSP pathways, ²² and the structure provided by these programs can be adapted to EM training paradigms for research‐interested EM applicants. PSTP programs also offer intellectual community and shared career goals, which provide important support for trainees. Developing such research‐focused training pathways requires independent research‐oriented faculty, so such pathways may not be feasible in all institutions.

Developing these pathways will take work and monetary investment. Research career training requires strong mentors and dedicated resources. In 2020, fewer than 100 faculty in EM were principal investigators for NIH grants, and fewer than ten K12 or T32 institutional training awards were active in departments of EM. ² While only 41 EM departments had NIH funding in 2022, this has increased by 20% over the past decade. ²³ Research funding from EM foundations has been robust over the past 20 years, and these awards have been leveraged effectively into future federal research funding. ²⁴ Continued focus in this area, especially in aligning combined MD/PhD research training pathways in institutions with successful federally funded research programs, will be critical to realizing the 2030 EM research strategic goals. ²

LIMITATIONS

Our study has several limitations. First, our response rate of nearly 70%, while strong for an electronic survey, may have missed nonresponding programs with resources to support physician‐scientist career development. Many of the programs that did not respond were community‐based residency programs. Second, we collected data and opinions from only one respondent at each site. While we tried to identify the person best informed to provide accurate data and perceptions, there may have been some misclassification if the information or opinions held by that person were not internally consistent with others in the institution. Finally, we focused our data collection on dedicated physician‐scientist training for graduates of MD/PhD programs. This pathway is clearly not the only (or even the dominant) pathway into a career as an EM physician‐scientist, but we focused on this pathway as a roadmap for successful training that other specialties have used to grow their physician‐scientist workforce and that could be applied in EM.

CONCLUSIONS

In our cross‐sectional survey of U.S. emergency medicine residency programs, we identified 22 programs with both a research track and a research fellowship focused on providing career‐level mentored research training to residents interested in pursuing a career as a physician‐scientist, and we identified two dedicated physician‐scientist training pathways residency pathways in emergency medicine. Program directors were largely enthusiastic about training physician‐scientists. Growing research activity in emergency medicine remains a strategic priority, so identifying techniques to recruit and retain research‐interested medical students into emergency medicine is critical.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Study concept and design (Karen Cyndari, Philip A. Mudd, Nicholas Mohr), acquisition of the data (Karen Cyndari, Libby White, Philip A. Mudd, Nicholas Mohr), analysis and interpretation of the data (Libby White, Karen Cyndari, Nicholas Mohr, J. Priyanka Vakkalanka), drafting of the manuscript (Libby White, Karen Cyndari, J. Priyanka Vakkalanka, Nicholas Mohr, Sydney Krispin), critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content (Karen Cyndari, Libby White, Philip A. Mudd, J. Priyanka Vakkalanka, Sydney Krispin, Kelli Wallace, Megan Schagrin, Nicholas Mohr), and statistical expertise (J. Priyanka Vakkalanka).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supporting information

Data S1.

Cyndari K, White L, Mudd PA, et al. Emergency medicine residency pathways for MD/PhD trainees: A national cross‐sectional study of physician‐scientist training programs. AEM Educ Train. 2024;8:e10960. doi: 10.1002/aet2.10960