Factors of engagement in research after graduation from EP fellowship: An HRS survey

Sunita J Ferns; Marmar Vaseghi; Matthew J Singleton; Duy T Nguyen; Sanjiv M Narayan; Kenneth C Bilchick

doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2024.07.093

Factors of engagement in research after graduation from EP fellowship: An HRS survey

Heart Rhythm. 2024 Jul 23:S1547-5271(24)03053-4. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2024.07.093. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Sunita J Ferns¹, Marmar Vaseghi², Matthew J Singleton³, Duy T Nguyen⁴, Sanjiv M Narayan⁵, Kenneth C Bilchick⁶

Affiliations

¹ Department of Pediatrics, University of Illinois in Chicago, College of Medicine in Peoria, Peoria, Illinois. Electronic address: sunita@uic.edu.
² Department of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
³ Cardiovascular Medicine, Wellspan Health, York, Pennsylvania.
⁴ Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
⁵ Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California.
⁶ Department of Medicine, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia.

PMID: 39053751
DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2024.07.093

Abstract

Background: The declining number of electrophysiologists pursuing academic research careers could have a negative impact on innovation for patients with heart rhythm disorders in the coming decades.

Objective: The objective of this study was to explore determinants of research engagement after graduation from electrophysiology (EP) fellowship programs and to evaluate associated barriers and opportunities.

Methods: A mixed methods survey of EP fellows and early-career electrophysiologists was conducted, drawing from Heart Rhythm Society members. The survey encompassed 20 questions on demographics, research involvement, perceived research barriers, and perspectives on research time and opportunities. Responses were analyzed with robust Poisson regression.

Results: Of 259 respondents, those with dedicated research blocks during their fellowship had a significantly higher interest in future research (relative risk, 1.15; P = .04). The number of peer-reviewed publications modestly influenced interest in continued research (relative risk, 1.0034 per publication; P < .0001), but there was no relationship to gender or race. Educational resources, networking opportunities, mentorship, funding, and protected time to enhance research engagement were important themes in the qualitative analysis, whereas key barriers to post-fellowship research were lack of mentorship, insufficient resources, and time constraints, in that order, particularly with respect to women in research. Notably, no significant differences in barriers were observed between community training programs and academic centers.

Conclusion: Research experience and mentorship during EP fellowship were key determinants of subsequent research success after training, with similar findings by sex and race. These findings explain how fellowship training influences a physician's research practice after training and highlights opportunities to modify EP fellowships and to augment research retention.

Keywords: Academic productivity; Collaboratory; Early career; Electrophysiology; Fellowship; Publications; Research opportunities; Survey.

Grants and funding

R01 HL159945/HL/NHLBI NIH HHS/United States