IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0343064.html

Motivation and determinants of research careers among physicians: Exploring pros and cons of the Dutch MD-PhD model

Author

Listed:
  • Margot M Weggemans
  • Frank J Wolters
  • Rinze Benedictus
  • Berent Prakken
  • Olle ten Cate
  • Helena JM Pennings

Abstract

Introduction: Training pathways, such as MD-PhD-programs, have been established to increase the physician-scientist workforce. Still, MD-PhDs represent only a small fraction of the physician workforce worldwide. This is different in the Netherlands, where half of specialist physicians hold a PhD, but little is known about their careers. We aimed to explore the motivations of Dutch physicians to pursue a PhD, and investigate the proportion of MD-PhDs entering physician-scientist careers. Methods: In 2022, we conducted a survey study among all MD-PhDs in the Netherlands who obtained a PhD degree in the year 2008. Drawing on self-determination theory, we used the Motivation for PhD Studies Scale to assess respondents’ motivations for pursuing a PhD. We defined a physician-scientist career as spending at least 20% of working hours on both research and clinical work. Results: Of all 479 MD-PhDs, 240 completed the survey (response rate 56.6%). Motivation for a physician-scientist career appeared to be predominantly driven by autonomous motivation (including intrinsic and internalized forms of extrinsic motivation), rather than controlled motivation (reflecting external and internal pressures). Of all respondents, 67.5% reported a combination of clinical and research activities. One quarter (25.2%) met our criteria for a physician-scientist career, similar between men and women. Higher scores for autonomous motivation were associated with continued research activity, including a physician-scientist career and tenured appointment. The motivation to pursue research and having a scientific network or research collaborations were mentioned as supportive factors for continuing research after the PhD. The lack of dedicated time for research and a desire to spend more time with one’s partner or family were the most important barriers against continued research activities. Conclusions: Autonomous motivation is more important than controlled motivation for Dutch physicians in pursuit of a PhD, and is associated with an increased likelihood of a subsequent physician-scientist career. Of the large proportion of MD-PhDs in the Dutch physician workforce, one fourth continues as physician-scientist.

Suggested Citation

  • Margot M Weggemans & Frank J Wolters & Rinze Benedictus & Berent Prakken & Olle ten Cate & Helena JM Pennings, 2026. "Motivation and determinants of research careers among physicians: Exploring pros and cons of the Dutch MD-PhD model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(3), pages 1-16, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0343064
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0343064
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0343064
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0343064&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0343064?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Declan Butler, 2008. "Translational research: Crossing the valley of death," Nature, Nature, vol. 453(7197), pages 840-842, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Watzinger, Martin & Schnitzer, Monika, 2019. "Standing on the Shoulders of Science," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 215, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    2. Daniel P. Gross & Bhaven N. Sampat, 2022. "Crisis Innovation Policy from World War II to COVID-19," Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 135-181.
    3. Yi, Guanting, 2025. "Health insurance expansion and academic production: The case of Medicare Part D legislation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 367(C).
    4. Marguin, Séverine & Haus, Juliane & Heinrich, Anna Juliane & Kahl, Antje & Schendzielorz, Cornelia & Singh, Ajit, 2021. "Positionality Reloaded: Debating the Dimensions of Reflexivity in the Relationship Between Science and Society: An Editorial," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 46(2), pages 7-34.
    5. repec:plo:pone00:0007015 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Bonnin Roca, Jaime & O'Sullivan, Eoin, 2022. "The role of regulators in mitigating uncertainty within the Valley of Death," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    7. Anckaert, Paul-Emmanuel, 2025. "When the drugs (don’t) work: The role of science in product commercialization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(5).
    8. Tim Hulsen, 2020. "Sharing Is Caring—Data Sharing Initiatives in Healthcare," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-12, April.
    9. Liang (Leon) Xu & Hui Zhao & Nicholas C. Petruzzi, 2021. "Inducing Compliance with Postmarket Studies for Drugs Under FDA’s Accelerated Approval Pathway," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 170-190, 1-2.
    10. Azoulay, Pierre & Heggeness, Misty & Kao, Jennifer, 2025. "Medical research and health care finance: Evidence from Academic Medical Centers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(2).
    11. Yeon Hak Kim & Aaron D. Levine & Eric J. Nehl & John P. Walsh, 2020. "A bibliometric measure of translational science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2349-2382, December.
    12. Clemens Blümel, 2018. "Translational research in the science policy debate: a comparative analysis of documents," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(1), pages 24-35.
    13. Vittori, Davide & Natalicchio, Angelo & Panniello, Umberto & Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio & Cupertino, Francesco, 2022. "Business Model Innovation between the embryonic and growth stages of industry lifecycle," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    14. Bonnín Roca, Jaime & Vaishnav, Parth & Morgan, Granger M. & Fuchs, Erica & Mendonça, Joana, 2021. "Technology Forgiveness: Why emerging technologies differ in their resilience to institutional instability," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    15. Erik Aarden & Luca Marelli & Alessandro Blasimme, 2021. "The translational lag narrative in policy discourse in the United States and the European Union: a comparative study," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, December.
    16. Azoulay, Pierre & Greenblatt, Wesley H. & Heggeness, Misty L., 2021. "Long-term effects from early exposure to research: Evidence from the NIH “Yellow Berets”," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    17. Döme, Viktória & Cycak, Weronika & Matus, Kira JM, 2025. "Variations in innovation strategies for sustainable development: Sustainable innovation policy instrument mixes of ten small OECD countries across five sectors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(6).
    18. Alex Coad & Agustí Segarra-Blasco & Mercedes Teruel, 2021. "A bit of basic, a bit of applied? R&D strategies and firm performance," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 1758-1783, December.
    19. Currie, Graeme & El Enany, Nellie & Lockett, Andy, 2014. "Intra-professional dynamics in translational health research: The perspective of social scientists," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 81-88.
    20. Elise M. R. Smith & Stephen Molldrem & Jeffrey S. Farroni & Emma Tumilty, 2024. "Articulating the social responsibilities of translational science," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-13, December.
    21. Mulligan, Kevin & Lenihan, Helena & Doran, Justin & Roper, Stephen, 2022. "Harnessing the science base: Results from a national programme using publicly-funded research centres to reshape firms’ R&D," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(4).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0343064. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.