Postgraduate education among family and community physicians in Brazil: the Trajetórias MFC project

Introduction

In the second half of the 20th century, family medicine differentiated from general practice as a result of the increased appreciation of the importance of primary health care, the psychosocial aspects of health and the complexity of causation.^1–3 “General practitioners” in countries such as the United Kingdom and the Netherlands are expected to undergo postgraduate training (medical residency), and thus are family physicians by another name.^4–6

In Brazil, emphasis on primary health care coincided with the fight for redemocratization, culminating in the establishment of a national health system called Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS; Unified Health System).^1,7–10 The origin of family medicine in Brazil, however, was everything but unified. In the 1970s, movements called community medicine (medicina comunitária) and comprehensive medicine (medicina integral) merged into a medical specialty then called community general medicine (medicina geral comunitária).^1,7–9 In 2000-2001, after SUS started expanding access to primary health care through the Family Health Strategy (then Family Health Program, conceived based on community general medicine and other inputs ^7,11,12), community general medicine resolved its differences with family medicine, resulting in a medical specialty now called family and community medicine (medicina de família e comunidade, MFC).^1,8 Preventive and social medicine (medicina preventiva e social) remains a separate specialty, despite the partially overlapping scope of practice.¹

The concepts of “field of competence” and “core competence” ¹³ have been considered useful for understanding the interplay between the disciplines of primary health care and family and community medicine.⁹ Family and community medicine having its core competences does not preclude it from sharing primary health care as a field of competence, or vice-versa. Even though McWhinney and Freeman have argued family medicine to be an academic discipline separate from other medical disciplines,^2,14,15 they also recognize distinctions among disciplines are sometimes more administrative and historical than epistemological.²

In Brazil, though, neither primary health care, nor family and community medicine are acknowledged as knowledge areas in the official “tree of knowledge” adopted by CAPES (the Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education), CNPq (the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development) and FINEP (the Funding Authority for Studies and Projects). This means research grant applications and postgraduate programs (master’s and Ph.D.) must be registered in correlated basic knowledge areas, such as interdisciplinary, medicine or collective health, or in some subarea or specialty within those basic knowledge areas. In Latin America, “collective health” comprises (among other definitions ¹⁶) public health, epidemiology and humanities and social sciences in health.¹⁷

Accordingly, there are only a few postgraduate programs on primary health care or Family Health ^18–21 (but no one on family and community medicine, that we know of) in Brazil, and university departments dedicated to primary health care and/or family and community medicine are exceedingly rare. Brazilian journals on primary health care and/or family and community medicine have little prestige, and thus a substantial part of relevant research is expected to be published in other, more general journals (this is not specific to Brazil ²²). All this makes it very hard to gather a comprehensive understanding of the postgraduate education and research in primary health care and/or family and community medicine.

In this study, we hope to shed some light on the postgraduate education of primary health care professionals in Brazil by using specialization in family and community medicine as a way to identify physicians more likely to be involved with primary health care. Our objective was to explore their trajectories in postgraduate education (master’s and Ph.D.), describing the characteristics of their postgraduate degrees as well as correlating such degrees with characteristics of the physicians and their previous training.

Methods

In this article, we report results from an observational, exploratory study, integrating secondary data from multiple sources: the Trajetórias MFC project.

Results

The first 24 editions of the specialist certification exam resulted in the emission of 2816 certificates, amounting to 2795 unique physicians. Furthermore, 3959 medical residencies were completed (936 in general community medicine and 3023 after it was renamed family and community medicine), amounting to 3957 unique physicians. Because 514 physicians both concluded a medical residency and were certified, there were 6238 unique family and community physicians. Of these, 4065 (65.2%) had a CV in the Lattes Platform. Median time since these CVs were last updated was 1 year, with an IQR of 0–4 years and a maximum of 18 years.

Most family and community physicians (3563, 58.3%) were female, and the most common mode of specialization was medical residency (3917, 62.8%) (Table 1). The number of new family and community physicians clearly increased over time, with the largest increases being from 1999–2003 to 2004–2008 and from 2009–2013 to 2014–2018. Specialization in family and community medicine was concentrated in the Southeast and South regions.

A master’s degree was obtained by 747 (12.0%) family and community physicians (Table 2), with 554 (74.2%) degrees being academic and the other 193 (25.8%) being professional. The number of new master’s degrees clearly increased with time, especially from 2004–2008 to 2009–2013; from 2009–2013 to 2014–2018, the increase was restricted to professional master’s degrees. As for specialization, master’s degrees were concentrated in the Southeast and South regions, both for academic and professional degrees. Master’s degrees in collective health (351, 47.0%) were twice as frequent as those in medicine (170, 22.8%), with other frequent knowledge areas being interdisciplinary (84, 11.2%), teaching (30, 4.0%) and education (24, 3.2%). Professional degrees accounted for 104 (29.6%) of the master’s degrees in collective health, but only 27 (15.9%) of those in medicine. The postgraduate programs were spread across 141 institutions, with only eight of them having conferred a master’s degree to at least 20 family and community physicians. Most family and community physicians obtained their master’s degrees from Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS; Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul), Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (Fiocruz; Oswaldo Cruz Foundation) or Universidade de São Paulo (USP; University of São Paulo); more information on Supplemental Table ²⁸.

A Ph.D. degree was held by 170 (2.7%) family and community physicians (Table 2). There were no professional Ph.D. degrees. As with master’s degrees, there was an increase in new Ph.D. degrees over time, and most degrees were obtained in the Southeast and South regions of Brazil. Contrary to master’s degrees, Ph.D. degrees in medicine (64, 38%) were almost as common as those in collective health (72, 42%). The postgraduate programs were spread across 40 institutions, with only two of them (USP and UFRGS) having conferred more than 20 degrees; more information on Supplemental Table ²⁸.

Some groups of family and community physicians were less likely to hold a master’s or Ph.D. degree, even after adjusting for other characteristics (Table 3, Table 4). Women were less likely to hold a master’s degree than their male colleagues, and only half as likely to hold a Ph.D.. Family and community physicians with a professional master’s degree were □ as likely to earn a Ph.D. degree as those with an academic master’s degree. A master’s degree in other knowledge area also implicated lower likelihood of earning a Ph.D. than a master’s in medicine or collective health.

Among those earning a master’s degree, median time from specialization to master’s was 4 years (IQR, 0–6): 5 years (IQR, 3–8) for family and community physicians specializing through medical residency, and 1 year (IQR, −3 to 4) for those specializing through certification. In other words, earning a master’s degree came before specialization for 21.8% family and community physicians: 9.1% for those specializing through medical residency, and 39.9% for those specializing through certification. The proportion of master’s degrees in each of the knowledge areas (medicine, collective health, other) was very similar across the specialization modes (certification or medical residency) (data not shown).

Likewise, median time from specialization to Ph.D. degree was 9 years (IQR, 3.25– 12): 10 years (IQR, 7–14) for family and community physicians specializing through medical residency, and 2 years (IQR, −2.5 to 9) for those specializing through certification. In other words, earning a Ph.D. degree came before specialization for 16% family and community physicians: 6% for those specializing through medical residency, and 33% for those specializing through certification. As with the master’s degrees, the proportion of Ph.D. degrees in each of the knowledge areas (medicine, collective health, other) was very similar across the specialization modes (certification or medical residency) (data not shown).

Finally, median time from master’s to Ph.D. degree was 4 years (IQR, 0–6). Most family and community physicians earning a Ph.D. in collective health (50, 69%) also earned a master’s in the same knowledge area (Graph 1). On the other hand, half of those earning a Ph.D. in medicine earned a master’s in collective health (11, 17%) or no master’s at all (i.e., direct Ph.D.; 19, 30%). Most direct Ph.D. degrees (16, 53%), in medicine or otherwise, were conferred by USP.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Graph 1:

Alluvial diagram of knowledge areas for master’s and Ph.D. degrees of family and community physicians in Brazil, 2018

Discussion

Our findings indicate one in eight family and community physicians have earned a master’s degree, and little more than one in forty have earned a Ph.D.. The number of new degrees is increasing over time, and most of the degrees are in collective health (not medicine) and were obtained in the Southeast and South regions. Gender is associated with the probability of obtaining a master’s degree and, together with mode and knowledge area of the master’s, also with that of obtaining a Ph.D. degree. In comparison to family and community physicians specializing through medical residency, those specializing through certification were more likely to already have earned a master’s and/or Ph.D. degree (instead of earning after specialization), but just as likely to have earned their degree in medicine, collective health or other knowledge areas.

Professional master’s programs are responsible for most of the recent increase in the number of master’s degrees, and might be attracting graduate students who would otherwise opt for academic programs. The Northeast region, with its RENASF network of institutions offering a professional master’s program focused on the Family Health Strategy,^19,20 accounts for part of this increase, as does the state of Rio de Janeiro, whose capital city recently invested heavily in the expansion of the Family Health Strategy and incentivized health professionals to earn master’s degrees;²¹ but the increase in professional master’s degrees was not restricted to these states (data not shown). Even though the ProfSaúde program ¹⁸ is expected to contribute to this increase, it does not account for our findings, because its first students graduated after we obtained our data.

Brazil has been promoting professional master’s on Family Health alongside other qualification initiatives, such as residencies, short postgraduate courses and academic master’s.^21,30 While one would expect any qualification to contribute something, responsible public policies for human resources in health depend on critically examining the relative benefits of the multiple possible postgraduate trajectories. In example, some qualification initiatives might add little to the performance of professionals who are already sufficiently qualified, or who are not qualified enough to benefit from said initiatives. Furthermore, for better or for worse, a professional master’s degree should increase employability in academia, thereby increasing workforce turnover in the Family Health Strategy while contributing to the education of the new generation of health professionals.

This debate is made even more timely by the advent of professional Ph.D. programs. Graduates from professional master’s courses seem to be less likely to earn Ph.D. degrees, even after adjusting for potential confounders, such as when was the master’s concluded. Because graduates from professional programs are expected to be outside academia, they might not find value in academic Ph.D. courses. It remains to be seen if professional Ph.D. programs are needed to fill this niche, or if simply there’s not much use for any Ph.D. outside academia. Meanwhile, physicians are still not required to complete medical residency (or otherwise be certified) before working in primary care in Brazil, and posts in medical residencies lag behind the annual number of newly graduated physicians (the same applies for nurses).⁴³ Another major finding is that most family and community physicians hold master’s and Ph.D. degrees in collective health, not medicine. This phenomenon is more common for master’s than for Ph.D. degrees, and for professional than for academic degrees, but it occurs in both levels and both modes of postgraduate programs. We can’t say this came as a surprise: of the authors who are family and community physicians, all three hold a Ph.D. in a subarea of collective health. In our experience, not only has collective health devoted substantial interest to primary health care as a public policy, but also the Brazilian medical community hasn’t devoted much interest to primary care as a locus of healthcare delivery. In example, searching for (“family medicine” OR “family and community medicine”) in the SciELO Brazil collection, one of the top five journals is on medical education and the other four are journals on collective health. This suggests most research on primary health care in Brazil to be on health policy, service management and health promotion, as well as medical education, but not so much on clinical care.

Most medical residencies, specialist certifications, masters’ and Ph.D. happened in the Southeast and South regions. The reason is twofold: these are two of the most populous regions (together with the Northeast region), and are the most economically developed ones. These facts also reflect in the overall distribution of physicians in Brazil.⁴⁴ Interestingly, our data do not support a higher probability of obtaining a master’s or Ph.D. degree for family and community physicians specializing or obtaining a master’s degree in the Southeast and South regions. This is not to say our data support equity in access to postgraduate programs: there simply are too few family and community physicians outside the Southeast and South regions for us to make precise estimates. As the saying goes, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence [of effect]”.⁴⁵

On the other hand, the association of gender and postgraduate degrees was very clear: female family and community physicians are less likely to obtain master’s degrees than their male colleagues, and even less so for Ph.D. degrees. This should not be interpreted as gender having a direct effect on educational achievement: our study was exploratory, and inclusion of gender as an explanatory variable was motivated mostly by the SAGER guidelines.⁴⁶ Rather, this finding should taken as justification for further studies, aimed at a more proper explanation for this correlation. Such explanation might have more to do with family and community medicine than with the Brazilian society at large, because half the master’s and Ph.D. graduates in Brazil are women.⁴⁷ Besides the ethical relevance of elucidating and preferably removing any gendered barriers to postgraduate education, the issue has special relevance to the discipline because most family and community physicians are women.

In interpreting our findings, one must keep in mind we depended on administrative data. Because data from Conselho Federal de Medicina (CFM; the Federal Board of Medicine) is not available to others, we could not perform record linkage to identify who had retired, emigrated or deceased. The National Registration of Specialists was expected to provide easy access to an authoritative list of physicians in any medical specialty, but unfortunately it has not been maintained as prescribed by the More Doctors Law.⁴⁸ Consequently, the number of family and community physicians is surely overestimated, even if we expect this overestimation to be minor, because family and community medicine is a fairly young specialty in Brazil.⁴⁴ In 2018, Augusto et al.²³ (using the same methods as us) estimated there would be 5.438 family and community physicians in Brazil, 276 (5%) more than the 5.162 found by Scheffer et al.,⁴⁴ who had access to CFM data. Another limitation of our study was that, as in Augusto et al.,²³ we could not include the family and community physicians who completed their medical residencies in the 1970s. SisCNRM records for family and community medicine (then community general medicine) begin at 1981, when the specialty was recognized; we can only hope family and community physicians from the 1970s eventually took the exams and were certified after 2003.

Our data had limitations with regard to postgraduate programs, as well. Postgraduate degrees will probably have been underreported to some extent, even though postgraduate students are incentivized to have a CV in the Lattes Platform and entering data on a postgraduate degree is simple enough. Furthermore, there surely was some information error in the reported degrees, but we hope to have cleaned most of those errors during our verification. One potential issue is that we verified the data using current information on the postgraduate programs, not information from when the degrees were obtained; but much of the information is not expected to change in any significant way, and possible changes in the knowledge subarea or specialty of the postgraduate programs would not matter for our analysis, which were done at the level of basic knowledge area. Finally, because the Lattes Platform was launched in 1999, master’s and Ph.D. degrees earned before then are expected to be underreported, even if this underreporting is expected to occur among those who don’t make much use of the degrees.

In conclusion, family and community physicians increasingly earn academic and professional master’s and Ph.D. degrees, with an emphasis on collective health, even though women seemingly face barriers to advance their education. The consequences of different postgraduate trajectories on professional performance and on primary health care research are unknown. We suggest it would be easier to gain a wider view of postgraduate education of primary health care professionals and/or on primary health care if the National Registration of Specialists came back online, and if primary health care and/or family and community medicine were recognized as knowledge areas.