目的 在知识生产模式转型的背景下,剖析医学学术学位博士研究生(以下简称博士生)培养模式,调查博士生与导师的认知态度,探讨知识生产模式对其科研能力的影响并提出优化策略,为提升高层次医学人才培养质量提供参考。 方法 2024年11至12月,本研究综合运用问卷调查与结构化访谈2种方法,分别调查244名某高校医学学术学位博士生和访谈44名博士研究生导师(以下简称导师),了解其对培养模式的认识和态度。采用描述性统计分析相关数据。 结果 博士生普遍认为培养内容应当涵盖理论研究与学术成果、应用研究与实践能力以及跨学科知识的交叉融合;仅有9.4%(23/244)的博士生认为当前的培养模式能够充分支持跨学科研究。84.1%(37/44)的导师对现有知识生产模式表示满意,但也有部分导师指出传统模式在促进创新性成果产出方面存在不足,更倾向于采用跨学科模式。 结论 当前博士生培养模式与博士生跨学科需求存在差距,且部分导师认为传统培养模式在支撑创新成果产出方面存在局限,需要围绕跨学科融合优化培养体系,以适配知识生产模式转型下的高层次医学人才培养需求。未来可以通过深化跨学科合作、创新导师指导模式、推动评价机制多元化等策略,培养兼具实践能力与创新精神的复合型医学人才。

Objective This study aimed to analyze the training model of academic doctorate in medicine from the perspective of knowledge production mode transformation, to investigate the perceptions and attitudes of both doctoral students and their supervisors, to explore the impact of the model on scientific research ability, and propose optimization strategies, and to inform future improvement of the quality of high-level medical talent training. Methods From November to December 2024, a combination of questionnaire investigation and structured interviews was used to investigate candidates of academic doctorate in medicine and their supervisors. The understanding and attitude of participants towards knowledge production mode were collected, to comprehensively understand the current situation in this field. Descriptive statistical analysis was used to analyze relevant data. Results Doctorate candidates generally believed that the training model should cover the integration of theoretical research and academic achievements, applied research and practical abilities, as well as the interdisciplinary knowledge. In addition, only 9.4% (23/244) of the surveyed doctorate candidates believed that the current training model can fully support interdisciplinary research. In addition, 84.1% (37/44) of the surveyed supervisors were satisfied with the existing knowledge production model, but some pointed out that the traditional training model has deficiencies in promoting the output of innovative results and were more inclined to adopt an interdisciplinary model. Conclusions There is a gap between the current training model of academic doctorate in medicine and the interdisciplinary needs of doctorate candidates, and the limitations of the traditional training model in supporting innovative output have been recognized by some supervisors. It is necessary to optimize the training system around interdisciplinary integration to adapt to the high-level medical talent training needs from the perspective of transformation of knowledge production. In the future, optimization strategies such as deepening interdisciplinary cooperation, innovating the supervisor guidance model, and promoting diversified evaluation mechanisms can be employed to cultivate interdisciplinary medical talents with both practical abilities and innovative spirit.