Trainee survey identifies time, resources and mentorship as innovation barriers
Full citation: Boms O, Shi Z, Mallipeddi N, Chung JJ, Marks WH, Whitehead DC, Succi MD. Integrating innovation as a core objective in medical training. Nature Biotechnology. 2022;40(3):434-437. doi:10.1038/s41587-022-01253-x
Online first: March 16, 2022.
A new study from IO Lab identifies time, resources and access to expertise as obstacles to innovation during medical training. Published in Nature Biotechnology, the article combines a survey of medical trainees with proposals for incorporating innovation into education. The findings suggest that interest in developing new approaches to care needs practical support within training programs.
Okechi Boms and colleagues surveyed medical students, residents and fellows who read the medical news publication 2 Minute Medicine. Fifty-one people responded from 1,142 invited trainees. The survey explored how participants understood innovation, their experience with it and the barriers that limited their involvement.
Only 31% of respondents considered themselves innovators. Another 35% did not, while 33% were unsure. Participants reported less confidence in applying innovation skills than in understanding the concept. This gap points to a potential role for education that gives trainees supervised opportunities to practice developing and testing an idea.
Time and energy were among the most important barriers for 43% of respondents. Physical resources were cited by 35%, and expertise by 31%. Asked what would help, 61% selected dedicated time, 49% selected funding and 47% selected mentors. The pattern suggests that courses may need institutional support to become part of a trainee’s working life.
The authors outline several educational approaches. A longitudinal track can support a project over time, while a workshop series can introduce a sequence of skills. More focused programs can teach a specific capability, such as building a prototype or assessing a clinical need. Institutions could choose among these approaches according to their resources and educational goals.
The survey has important limits. The response rate was about 4.5%, and participants came from a medical-news readership. People interested in innovation may have been more likely to respond. The results therefore describe this group and cannot establish the views of medical trainees generally. The proposed educational approaches were also not compared in a controlled trial.
For educators, the study offers questions to ask before launching a program. Trainees need to know where to seek advice, how to access resources and when they can work on an idea. Following participation and learning over time would help determine whether those supports make innovation education accessible and useful alongside clinical training.