ThePLoS Medicine editors, and Guest Editors Scott Stonington and Seth Holmes, introduce a special collection of articles examining the social structures that contribute to illness and health.

Global health's goal to address health issues across great sociocultural and socioeconomic gradients worldwide requires a sophisticated approach to the social root causes of disease and the social context of interventions. This is especially true today as the focus of global health work is actively broadened from acute to chronic and from infectious to non-communicable diseases. To respond to these complex biosocial problems, we propose the recent expansion of interest in the field of global health should look to the older field of social medicine, a shared domain of social and medical sciences that offers critical analytic and methodological tools to elucidate who gets sick, why and what we can do about it. Social medicine is a rich and relatively untapped resource for understanding the hybrid biological and social basis of global health problems. Global health can learn much from social medicine to help practitioners understand the social behaviour, social structure, social networks, cultural difference and social context of ethical action central to the success or failure of global health's important agendas. This understanding - of global health as global social medicine - can coalesce global health's unclear identity into a coherent framework effective for addressing the world's most pressing health issues.

Background

While several articles on MD-PhD trainees in the basic sciences have been published in the past several years, very little research exists on physician-investigators in the social sciences and humanities. However, the numbers of MD-PhDs training in these fields and the number of programs offering training in these fields are increasing, particularly within the US. In addition, accountability for the public funding for MD-PhD programs requires knowledge about this growing population of trainees and their career trajectories. The aim of this paper is to describe the first cohorts of MD-PhDs in the social sciences and humanities, to characterize their training and career paths, and to better understand their experiences of training and subsequent research and practice.

Methods

This paper utilizes a multi-pronged recruitment method and novel survey instrument to examine an understudied population of MD-PhD trainees in the social sciences and humanities, many of whom completed both degrees without formal programmatic support. The survey instrument was designed to collect demographic, training and career trajectory data, as well as experiences of and perspectives on training and career. It describes their routes to professional development, characterizes obstacles to and predictors of success, and explores career trends.

Results

The average length of time to complete both degrees was 9 years. The vast majority (90%) completed a clinical residency, almost all (98%) were engaged in research, the vast majority (88%) were employed in academic institutions, and several others (9%) held leadership positions in national and international health organizations. Very few (4%) went into private practice. The survey responses supply recommendations for supporting current trainees as well as areas for future research.

Conclusions

In general, MD-PhDs in the social sciences and humanities have careers that fit the goals of agencies providing public funding for training physician-investigators: they are involved in mutually-informative medical research, clinical practice, and teaching - working to improve our responses to the social, cultural, and political determinants of health and health care. These findings provide strong evidence for continued and improved funding and programmatic support for MD-PhD trainees in the social sciences and humanities.