1. 2024;27;E627-E636Trainee Insight into Pain Fellowship Programs: A Critical Evaluation of the Current Educational System by the APPD
   Survey
   Sayed Emal Wahezi, MD, Tahereh Naeimi, MD, Moorice Caparo, MD, Trent D. Emerick, ., Heejung Choi, MD, Yashar Eshraghi, MD, Magdalena Anitescu, MD, Kiran Patel, MD, Rene Przkora, MD, PhD, Thelma Wright, MD, Susan Moeschler, MD, Meredith Barad, MD, Stephanie Rand, MD, Mooyeon Oh-Park, MD, Benjamin Seidel, DO, Ugur Yener, MD, Jonathan Alerte, MD, Naum Shaparin, MD, Alan D. Kaye, MD, PhD, and Lynn Kohan, MD.

BACKGROUND: Since 1992, when the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) acknowledged pain medicine as a subspecialty, the field has experienced significant growth in its number of programs, diversity of sponsoring specialties, treatment algorithms, and popularity among applicants. These shifts prompted changes to the educational model, overseen by program directors (PDs) and the ACGME. The pool of pain fellowship applicants also changed during that period.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to investigate trainees’ reasons for applying to pain medicine fellowship programs as well as the applicants’ specific expectations, interests, and motivations, thereby contributing to the remodeling and universal improvement of programs across the country.

STUDY DESIGN: Online survey via SurveyMonkey. The online questionnaire targeted pain fellowship applicants in 2023 and current fellows in the US.

METHODS: Our study was designed by board members of the Association of Pain Program Directors (APPD). The board disseminated a survey to those who applied to ACGME Pain Medicine fellowships in 2023 as well as to existing fellows. The survey was emailed to residency and fellowship PDs for dissemination to their trainees. The participants answered a 12-question survey on their reasons for pursuing pain medicine fellowships, expectations of and beyond those fellowships, and educational adjustments.

RESULTS: There were 283 survey participants (80% applicants in residency training and 20% fellows). Participants ranked basic interventional procedures and a strong desire to learn advanced procedures as the most significant factors in pursuing a pain fellowship. Most trainees (70%) did not wish to pursue a 2-year fellowship, and 50% desired to go into private practice.

LIMITATIONS: The relatively small number of respondents is a limitation that could introduce sampling error. Since most of the respondents were from the fields of physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) and anesthesia, the use of convenience sampling reduced our ability to generalize the results to the wider community. Furthermore, approximately 80% of the trainees were residents, who might have had less experience in or knowledge of the survey’s particulars than did the fellows.

CONCLUSION: This survey demonstrated that procedural volume and diversity were important factors in trainees’ decisions to apply to the field of pain medicine; however, extending the duration of a pain fellowship was not an option survey participants favored. Therefore, PDs and educational stakeholders in pain fellowship training need to develop creative strategies to maintain competitive applicants’ interest while they adapt to our evolving field.

KEY WORDS: Graduate medical education, competency-based medical education, multidisciplinary, chronic pain, pain medicine, fellows