Gap Year for Research: Is It Worth It?

Dr. Berges said the problem for trainees is that there is so much competition and not many ways to distinguish oneself, especially in the era of pass/fail grading systems and United States Medical Licensing Examination scores. Adding research is one way. But, she emphasized, it comes at a cost, both figuratively and realistically. “Many residents in my cohort are older, so taking additional time inevitably delays future earnings, which plays a factor in deciding to take a gap research year,” she said.

Arifeen Sylvanna Rahman, MD, is a resident in otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at Stanford University in Stanford, Calif. Her program includes an integrated research component that allows residents to have two fully funded years to research without interspersing other clinical responsibilities with clinical training. She said prolonged research time as an option in residency is an overall beneficial option, as it provides protected, funded time to focus on research in the area that they may later specialize in and create foundational work.

“The downside is overall prolonging medical training, which over the years has become more and more filled with the pressure to add additional years of research time at various points to optimize one’s chances of academic success for those who may not be genuinely interested in research,” she said. Another downside is that some applicants do it to increase their odds of matching at a particular program.

By doing research, Dr. Rahman said she hopes she can make a difference in changing the conversation about what is important and warrants more focus and investigation in various fields, adding that many of her published studies are rooted in advocacy about particular issues in health policy or the process of medical training. She said she’s trying to give voice to topics that are not openly discussed. 

Mary Beth Nierengarten is a freelance medical writer based in Minnesota.