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
    ---><---

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.