A physician assistant entry-level doctoral degree: more harm than good?
Benefits and risks
Entry-level doctoral degree
Physician assistant
Post-graduate education
Terminal degree
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 May 2021
14 May 2021
Historique:
received:
01
02
2021
accepted:
30
04
2021
entrez:
14
5
2021
pubmed:
15
5
2021
medline:
18
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
As most health professions in the United States have adopted clinical or practice doctorates, there has been an ongoing debate on whether physician assistants (PAs) should transition from a master's to a doctorate as the terminal degree. The authors examined perceived risks, benefits and impact of transitioning to an entry-level PA doctoral degree. A multi-prong, mixed-methods approach was used that included a literature review and collecting quantitative and qualitative data using a survey and interviews. Bivariate analysis and binomial logistic regression were performed to evaluate relationships between perceptions/perspectives on an entry-level PA doctoral degree and the anticipated impact of it causing more harm than good to the PA profession. Deductive content analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data. Of 636 PA clinicians and students (46% response rate), 457 (72%) disagreed that an entry-level PA doctoral degree should be required. More than half of the respondents (54%) agreed that it should be offered but not required and 380 respondents (60%) agreed that an entry-level doctoral degree would cause more harm than good. Race, educational attainment, occupation, and length of practice as a PA were significantly associated with having a perception of causing more harm. There was strong positive association between the perception of a doctoral degree causing more harm with expectations of having a negative impact on the availability of clinical training sites (OR = 4.39, p < .05). The most commonly cited benefits were parity with other professions and competitive advantage, whereas the perceived risks were increased cost for education, decreased diversity in the profession, and negative impact on the PA/physician relationship. The major takeaway of our study was that perceived benefits and risks are strongly influenced by the lens of the stakeholder. While the majority of PAs and students appear to be not in favor mainly due to the potential harm, the proportion of those in favor is not insignificant and their views should not be ignored. Addressing concerns with key stakeholders could help the PA profession to transition to a doctoral degree with minimal adverse impact.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
As most health professions in the United States have adopted clinical or practice doctorates, there has been an ongoing debate on whether physician assistants (PAs) should transition from a master's to a doctorate as the terminal degree. The authors examined perceived risks, benefits and impact of transitioning to an entry-level PA doctoral degree.
METHODS
METHODS
A multi-prong, mixed-methods approach was used that included a literature review and collecting quantitative and qualitative data using a survey and interviews. Bivariate analysis and binomial logistic regression were performed to evaluate relationships between perceptions/perspectives on an entry-level PA doctoral degree and the anticipated impact of it causing more harm than good to the PA profession. Deductive content analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 636 PA clinicians and students (46% response rate), 457 (72%) disagreed that an entry-level PA doctoral degree should be required. More than half of the respondents (54%) agreed that it should be offered but not required and 380 respondents (60%) agreed that an entry-level doctoral degree would cause more harm than good. Race, educational attainment, occupation, and length of practice as a PA were significantly associated with having a perception of causing more harm. There was strong positive association between the perception of a doctoral degree causing more harm with expectations of having a negative impact on the availability of clinical training sites (OR = 4.39, p < .05). The most commonly cited benefits were parity with other professions and competitive advantage, whereas the perceived risks were increased cost for education, decreased diversity in the profession, and negative impact on the PA/physician relationship.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The major takeaway of our study was that perceived benefits and risks are strongly influenced by the lens of the stakeholder. While the majority of PAs and students appear to be not in favor mainly due to the potential harm, the proportion of those in favor is not insignificant and their views should not be ignored. Addressing concerns with key stakeholders could help the PA profession to transition to a doctoral degree with minimal adverse impact.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33985497
doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02725-5
pii: 10.1186/s12909-021-02725-5
pmc: PMC8120902
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
274Références
J Adv Nurs. 2008 Apr;62(1):107-15
pubmed: 18352969
Pharm Pract (Granada). 2019 Jul-Sep;17(3):1611
pubmed: 31592299
MedGenMed. 2001 Mar 05;3(2):2
pubmed: 11549951
JAAPA. 2018 Nov;31(11):46-51
pubmed: 30358680
Am J Pharm Educ. 2015 Oct 25;79(8):117
pubmed: 26689560
J Physician Assist Educ. 2017 Oct;28 Suppl 1:S33-S37
pubmed: 28961620
Nurs Outlook. 2020 Jul - Aug;68(4):494-503
pubmed: 32561157
Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91
pubmed: 17695343
Acad Med. 2019 Jul;94(7):950-954
pubmed: 30998577
Acad Med. 2007 Sep;82(9):895-9
pubmed: 17726403
J Allied Health. 2011 Spring;40(1):25-33
pubmed: 21399849
Nurs Outlook. 2015 Mar-Apr;63(2):219-26
pubmed: 25771195
Med Educ Online. 2017;22(1):1396172
pubmed: 29117817