Outcomes of mentored, grant-funded fellowship training in haemostasis /thrombosis: findings from a nested case-control survey study

Successful strategies by which to effectively recruit and retain academic subspecialists in benign haematology have not been established. To evaluate the effectiveness of a grant-funded, mentored fellowship with respect to retention and early career goals in haemostasis/thrombosis, we sought to compare outcomes for graduates of a grant-funded, mentored fellowship training programme in haemostasis/thrombosis [the National Hemophilia Foundation (NHF)-Baxter Clinical Fellowship Award] during conventional haematology/oncology fellowship training (cases), vs. their training peers who were graduates of conventional haematology/oncology fellowship training alone (controls), via a nested case-control survey study. Survey response rate was 85% (11/13) for cases and 90% (9/10) for controls. All respondents had pursued careers in academic haematology/oncology. Median (range) percent time spent in benign haematology postfellowship was 98% (70-100%) for cases vs. 0% (0-20%) for controls. Time spent in research was significantly greater among cases than controls (median 80% [range: 42-90%] vs. 55% [10-80%], respectively; P = 0.01). By years 3-4 postfellowship, median annual number of peer-reviewed publications was higher for cases than controls (3.5 vs. 1.0; P = 0.01). Cases were also more successful in grant funding (including K-awards). These data suggest that a grant-funded, mentored fellowship training programme in haemostasis/thrombosis may be superior to conventional haematology/oncology fellowship training alone with respect to outcomes of retention in clinical care/research, early-career grant funding and publication productivity.