The present study revealed an attrition rate of 7.3% among medical students completing an intercalated research degree at our institution between 1995 and 2014. This rate is lower than that reported in the literature—although a direct comparison may not be fully justified as the quoted 10% attrition rate comes from a national survey of MD/PhD students in the US [2].
We did not find a difference in attrition between male and female students; this is consistent with findings from the US [2]. However, women, on average, made up a smaller proportion of intercalating students: 42.5% of all BMedSc(Hons) students, 40% of all MBChB/PhD students (Alamri et al., unpublished) and 37% of US MD/PhD students [2], compared with 55–60% of all medical students at our institution [6].
From the available data, the proportion of withdrawing students engaging in other research activities before versus after intercalation was similar (around 40%). How this proportion differs from that of students who had completed their intercalated degree or those who never intercalated is unknown, and is the subject of an ongoing study.
Most studies in the literature on physician-scientist attrition have focused on the early- and mid-career workforce (i.e., after completion of the medical/research degrees). For example, Koike and colleagues reported up to 30% of Japanese physician-scientists had left such a career path during the survey period [9]. Notwithstanding, useful strategies to further reduce attrition among intercalating medical students in New Zealand may be extrapolated from studies on physician-scientists. For example, the establishment of a centralized oversight (institutional or national) of intercalating students may provide a unified channel through which support (e.g., financial, career development, and re-integration into medical course) is accessed. This scheme has been suggested to facilitate the growth of the Japanese physician-scientist workforce [8]. Strategies to facilitate and encourage more women physicians into academia have already been described in Australasia [10] and elsewhere [2, 4].
We found the main predictors of non-completion of a research degree to be: reduced satisfaction with research, factors related to re-considering medicine as a career (as evident by withdrawing from the medical degree), problematic student-supervisor relationships, and challenging research projects. Other factors (e.g., illness) were also found to impede the student’s progress, although these were unpredictable. Our findings of specific (and reasonably consistent) reasons for withdrawal appear to be novel as there is paucity in the literature exploring reasons for attrition among medical students. It is noteworthy that financial concerns (either current or anticipated) were not cited by any of the students responding to our survey.
While some obstacles cannot be anticipated or easily addressed (e.g., illness), others may be more amenable to intervention in order to curtail the loss of young talents. At our institution, PhD students and their supervisors are highly encouraged to sign a memorandum of understanding at an early stage of the research project so that clear expectations may be established. This measure is not fault-proof, as the document is neither a current requirement for MBChB/PhD students, nor is it routinely completed for BMedSc(Hons) students. However, if completed and regularly reviewed/updated, the memorandum ought to provide an early means of identifying any difficulties with the research progress (which could impact of the student’s satisfaction/motivation), and troubleshooting any identified conflicts between the student and supervisor(s) by eliciting the help of the advisory committee. Additionally, tertiary institutions ought to invest in resources needed for students to support the correct choice of supervisor(s), and to offer mentorship training for new advisors/supervisors.
The present study is not without limitations. The low number of withdrawing students combined with a 53.8% response rate (typical of medical education surveys [11]) has led to only a few participants being included. This could have led to an underpowered analysis. Because results are from a single institution, this limits the external validity of the findings. Using questionnaires may limit the content of responses, and force interpretation of responses without the ability to clarify ambiguity. However, given the novelty of our findings, they ought to be viewed as an impetus for further research in this area.