Are there any Canadian friendly DO/PhD Programs with funding available?

[victorias]

Are there any Canadian friendly DO/PhD Programs with funding available, similar to MD/PhD programs?

Does anyone have information on this or has anyone applied to DO/PhD programs and can share your experience?

Thanks!

 

 

[JohnGrisham]

I wouldn't count on DO/PhD to be honest. Most of the schools, aside from MSU(michigan state), aren't really powerhouse research schools. They are focused on training doctors, not research clinicians.  

[victorias]

Thanks!

Are there any other options? I will look into MSU for sure.

[victorias]

Or does anyone here have experience in applying to DO/PhD programs?

[adhominem]

DO isn't really evidence-based practice (i.e. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5147986/ and all of the other reviews they cite therein). 

People who learn how to assess scientific evidence while in their PhD probably wouldn't pursue a DO degree.

[dumbebell]

8 hours ago, adhominem said:

DO isn't really evidence-based practice (i.e. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5147986/ and all of the other reviews they cite therein). 

People who learn how to assess scientific evidence while in their PhD probably wouldn't pursue a DO degree.

Do you even know the difference between "Cranial" Osteopathy and Osteopathic Medicine?

[adhominem]

20 hours ago, dumbebell said:

Do you even know the difference between "Cranial" Osteopathy and Osteopathic Medicine?

Yes. I am aware that it is a nonsensical and thoroughly debunked type of OMT that, to my knowledge, has not been removed from DO curricula nor has it been denounced by the AOA and equivalent bodies elsewhere (i.e. UK). To their credit though, the AOA has denounced needless chelation therapy outside of proven uses like acute heavy metal poisoning. However, their dogmatic and unproven preaching about the efficacy of their more dubious practices leave something to be desired. 

If you'd like to see a systematic review on more general OMT for musculoskeletal pain, see here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21053038. 

Case in point: what makes a DO unique from an MD is adherence to a bunch of unproven manipulative techniques with dubious merit. Although they're more accomplished than say chiropractic or naturopathic doctors in terms of becoming accredited medical professionals, there isn't much science backing them. 

 

[JohnGrisham]

On 9/1/2017 at 9:25 AM, adhominem said:

DO isn't really evidence-based practice (i.e. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5147986/ and all of the other reviews they cite therein). 

People who learn how to assess scientific evidence while in their PhD probably wouldn't pursue a DO degree.

Really isnt all that relative. The pseudo science makes up a small portion of the curricula, the rest is otherwise indistinguishable from MD. The only reason DO schools are still separate is because the AOA loves money and doesn't want to lose their monetary interest.

Welcome to the real world.

 

And you think people who want to assess scientific evidence shouldn't go DO right? You think there isnt nonsense in MD too? Clearly misguided and uninformed. People go DO because they want to be a doctor and not go carribean. Very few actually care about the OMM zealot nonsense. 

[dumbebell]

3 hours ago, adhominem said:

Yes. I am aware that it is a nonsensical and thoroughly debunked type of OMT that, to my knowledge, has not been removed from DO curricula nor has it been denounced by the AOA and equivalent bodies elsewhere (i.e. UK). To their credit though, the AOA has denounced needless chelation therapy outside of proven uses like acute heavy metal poisoning. However, their dogmatic and unproven preaching about the efficacy of their more dubious practices leave something to be desired. 

If you'd like to see a systematic review on more general OMT for musculoskeletal pain, see here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21053038. 

Case in point: what makes a DO unique from an MD is adherence to a bunch of unproven manipulative techniques with dubious merit. Although they're more accomplished than say chiropractic or naturopathic doctors in terms of becoming accredited medical professionals, there isn't much science backing them. 

 

Once again you are confusing Osteopathy with Osteopathic Medicine. To say that DO is "not evidence-based practice" is clearly incorrect. OMM that makes a very small portion of DO curriculum, otherwise, there is no significant difference between DO and MD.  

Anyway to answer the OP's question, MSU had DO/Phd program. 

[adhominem]

On 9/2/2017 at 4:27 PM, dumbebell said:

Once again you are confusing Osteopathy with Osteopathic Medicine. To say that DO is "not evidence-based practice" is clearly incorrect. OMM that makes a very small portion of DO curriculum, otherwise, there is no significant difference between DO and MD.  

Anyway to answer the OP's question, MSU had DO/Phd program. 

As pointed out by JohnGrisham and yourself, what defines a DO vs an MD is the osteopathic nonsense. I am confusing nothing- it is a defining feature that differentiates the DO from an MD, besides lower admissions standards. I am entirely correct that the portion of the DO which makes it unique is not evidence based practice, based on reading meta analyses of published research. I have already said this, and you two have actually both agreed with me on this point.

I am not saying the real medical education that a DO will receive is not, for the most part, evidence based. I am saying that all the extra osteopathic nonsense is not. I realize there is a difference between an osteopath and a DO, which is that they both are taught osteopathic nonsense but only one has a real medical education. I am not convinced there is such a thing as osteopathic medicine, because there are physicians who also participate in osteopathy (i.e. DO's) but that by no means makes osteopathy "medicine". This argument can be extended to naturopaths as well... There could be merit to any given treatment an ND gives, however the naturopathic elements certainly aren't evidence based and certainly don't qualify them as a doctor (as I define it). Perhaps, if they had real medical training in addition to their woo, they too could be considered (arguably) equal to MDs despite their adherence to other nonsense.

 

On 9/2/2017 at 2:53 PM, JohnGrisham said:

Really isnt all that relative. The pseudo science makes up a small portion of the curricula, the rest is otherwise indistinguishable from MD. The only reason DO schools are still separate is because the AOA loves money and doesn't want to lose their monetary interest.

Welcome to the real world.

 

And you think people who want to assess scientific evidence shouldn't go DO right? You think there isnt nonsense in MD too? Clearly misguided and uninformed. People go DO because they want to be a doctor and not go carribean. Very few actually care about the OMM zealot nonsense. 

Just because it is "only a small portion of the curricula" doesn't mean it isn't harmful. When you look at statistics for DO vs. MD adherence to pseudo-scientific practices, they appear to be higher for the DO group (qualitative and not peer reviewed so you may be unconvinced but... https://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/QA/osteo.html). You have fallen into the continuum fallacy here (i.e. MDs are not perfectly evidence based either and therefore they're essentially equivalent) is a little concerning to me. Just because there are problems with the MDs doesn't mean we should sweep larger and more evident ones under the rug by saying they're more or less the same and not an issue.

I realize that money is a huge factor. I just don't think there is any value in a separate DO program. They should drop the osteopathy nonsense and just merge to become MD-offering schools. The osteopathy component holds no inherent value, other than to make them different enough to justify their existence as a separate entity. All it does is create a two-tiered medical training system. Most schools which strong biomedical research programs won't offer a DO degree. If you want to get a PhD, you probably will be better off going to a school that offers MDs. 

 

[JohnGrisham]

2 hours ago, adhominem said:

As pointed out by JohnGrisham and yourself, what defines a DO vs an MD is the osteopathic nonsense. I am confusing nothing- it is a defining feature that differentiates the DO from an MD, besides lower admissions standards. I am entirely correct that the portion of the DO which makes it unique is not evidence based practice, based on reading meta analyses of published research. I have already said this, and you two have actually both agreed with me on this point.

I am not saying the real medical education that a DO will receive is not, for the most part, evidence based. I am saying that all the extra osteopathic nonsense is not. I realize there is a difference between an osteopath and a DO, which is that they both are taught osteopathic nonsense but only one has a real medical education. I am not convinced there is such a thing as osteopathic medicine, because there are physicians who also participate in osteopathy (i.e. DO's) but that by no means makes osteopathy "medicine". This argument can be extended to naturopaths as well... There could be merit to any given treatment an ND gives, however the naturopathic elements certainly aren't evidence based and certainly don't qualify them as a doctor (as I define it). Perhaps, if they had real medical training in addition to their woo, they too could be considered (arguably) equal to MDs despite their adherence to other nonsense.

 

Just because it is "only a small portion of the curricula" doesn't mean it isn't harmful. When you look at statistics for DO vs. MD adherence to pseudo-scientific practices, they appear to be higher for the DO group (qualitative and not peer reviewed so you may be unconvinced but... https://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/QA/osteo.html). You have fallen into the continuum fallacy here (i.e. MDs are not perfectly evidence based either and therefore they're essentially equivalent) is a little concerning to me. Just because there are problems with the MDs doesn't mean we should sweep larger and more evident ones under the rug by saying they're more or less the same and not an issue.

I realize that money is a huge factor. I just don't think there is any value in a separate DO program. They should drop the osteopathy nonsense and just merge to become MD-offering schools. The osteopathy component holds no inherent value, other than to make them different enough to justify their existence as a separate entity. All it does is create a two-tiered medical training system. Most schools which strong biomedical research programs won't offer a DO degree. If you want to get a PhD, you probably will be better off going to a school that offers MDs. 

 

Most students and more recent graduates who are practicing physicians who attended DO programs would agree with your bolded point. But good luck convincing the old gaurd to change. Again, why would they relinquish their "uniqueness" and "patient centered focus" aka the $$$$ when they don't have to? Most people are fine with sticking out with a couple hours of pseudo science if it means becoming a doctor and once they leave medical school and pass all their OSCEs, never ever use any of the osteopathic manipulation ever again(though a few modalities do have evidence and are regularly adopted by physiotherapy and chiro).   At least one of the benefits of the osteopathic manipulation is being more comfortable with clinical skills/physical exam and generally having far better anatomy/msk skills. While the specific manipulations are pseudoscience, DO students generally have far better surface anatomy and msk/manipulation skills than the average MD curriculum that in modern day has shifted away from spending curriculum hours on anatomy(at least in Canada).

Most people also don't want a PhD, so DO programs really could care less.   

Also, Michigan State has both an MD and DO program, and both are ranked quite highly and both produce strong graduates who match quite well for residency.  Why don't they relinquish their DO program? I doubt they care, they fill seats, graduate students and match them well = happy alumni = more donor money back for their Spartans athletics program. 

I don't reallly follow why you care so strongly about it anyways? If you want a PhD stick with the MD programs that offer them. Most medical students aren't doing MD/PhD so its a moot point for the vast majority. If the difference is between not being a doctor, or having to spend 2-3 years to get lucky to get into a Canadian MD program(by doing a 2nd degree, or masters or whatever), and going to a DO program sooner(instead of a carribean/aussie/irish), that is their personal choice and they know the risks of having to sit through a bit of fluff/pseudoscience Cranial Therapy.   

 

[JohnGrisham]

".. There could be merit to any given treatment an ND gives, however the naturopathic elements certainly aren't evidence based and certainly don't qualify them as a doctor (as I define it). Perhaps, if they had real medical training in addition to their woo, they too could be considered (arguably) equal to MDs despite their adherence to other nonsense."

At least you agree that DOs are doctors, because they otherwise receive the exact same training as MDs, but in addition to standard curriculum dabble in a bit of pseudoscience hah.  At least you arent equating them to NDs like some of the more uninformed people do  
 

[adhominem]

13 hours ago, JohnGrisham said:

".. There could be merit to any given treatment an ND gives, however the naturopathic elements certainly aren't evidence based and certainly don't qualify them as a doctor (as I define it). Perhaps, if they had real medical training in addition to their woo, they too could be considered (arguably) equal to MDs despite their adherence to other nonsense."

At least you agree that DOs are doctors, because they otherwise receive the exact same training as MDs, but in addition to standard curriculum dabble in a bit of pseudoscience hah.  At least you arent equating them to NDs like some of the more uninformed people do  
 

Oh absolutely, I recognize that the DO is a real medical education, just with some woo added in. The US is an exception in that regard though, as osteopaths in other countries receive no real medical education and are on par with the naturopaths. 

 

13 hours ago, JohnGrisham said:

Most students and more recent graduates who are practicing physicians who attended DO programs would agree with your bolded point. But good luck convincing the old gaurd to change. Again, why would they relinquish their "uniqueness" and "patient centered focus" aka the $$$$ when they don't have to? Most people are fine with sticking out with a couple hours of pseudo science if it means becoming a doctor and once they leave medical school and pass all their OSCEs, never ever use any of the osteopathic manipulation ever again(though a few modalities do have evidence and are regularly adopted by physiotherapy and chiro).   At least one of the benefits of the osteopathic manipulation is being more comfortable with clinical skills/physical exam and generally having far better anatomy/msk skills. While the specific manipulations are pseudoscience, DO students generally have far better surface anatomy and msk/manipulation skills than the average MD curriculum that in modern day has shifted away from spending curriculum hours on anatomy(at least in Canada).

Most people also don't want a PhD, so DO programs really could care less.   

Also, Michigan State has both an MD and DO program, and both are ranked quite highly and both produce strong graduates who match quite well for residency.  Why don't they relinquish their DO program? I doubt they care, they fill seats, graduate students and match them well = happy alumni = more donor money back for their Spartans athletics program. 

I don't reallly follow why you care so strongly about it anyways? If you want a PhD stick with the MD programs that offer them. Most medical students aren't doing MD/PhD so its a moot point for the vast majority. If the difference is between not being a doctor, or having to spend 2-3 years to get lucky to get into a Canadian MD program(by doing a 2nd degree, or masters or whatever), and going to a DO program sooner(instead of a carribean/aussie/irish), that is their personal choice and they know the risks of having to sit through a bit of fluff/pseudoscience Cranial Therapy.   

 

Unfortunately, I believe that a significant enough portion of them buy into the nonsense which makes it harmful. I believe anyone viewed as a physician should disavow any unsubstantiated treatment options unequivocally because it is in the best interest of patients and the healthcare system as a whole in the long run. Sure, it may offend people in the short term but I don't think being shortsighted is a virtue when it comes to fighting crazy ideas. Just look at how rampant antivax pseudoscience, homeopathy, naturopathy, and chiropractic (to some extent- a little evidence for a few things but a lot of bizarre and debunked nonsense too) are becoming. I have a hard-line stance on this mostly because I am a scientist first. As soon as  you lend credibility to bad science like osteopathy, it tends to create a slippery slope. 

Anyways, back to the real reason I posted besides my clear opposition to non-evidence based 'medicine'. For OP, I think it would be a mistake to pursue a joint DO/PhD for several reasons. First, your options are really limited. MSU is one of the few credible PhD granting universities that offers both. Second, you are probably far better off doing your PhD in Canada first (if you are Canadian, OP). Not only will a PhD make you competitive for MD schools here, it also means you won't be paying international tuition which would be massive, I'm sure. There are also tons of funding opportunities in Canada that you would not be eligible for down in the states for your PhD (i.e. CIHR, provincial awards, university awards, etc.).

I can also tell you that having a DO and applying for academic positions in Canada (I assume this is the case because otherwise there isn't much point to doing both...) is probably not going to help you. There is undeniably a negative connotation there because of the nonsense aspects of osteopathy. You look far less credible as a clinician scientist with a DO than you would with an MD on paper, regardless of how little you may subscribe to osteopathic nonsense. Besides that, it would be much harder to get a residency placement back in Canada (it can be done of course, but not nearly as easily as it would be if you start an MD in Canada after a PhD).  Since OP has the desire to do a PhD, I just think it would be far better for their future to consider doing the PhD prior to medicine and keep trying to get into an MD program here. A PhD will give you at least another 4 years to become more competitive, and many schools like PhDs (i.e. extra points at UofA and UofC, separate review at UofT, etc.).

[JohnGrisham]

6 hours ago, adhominem said:

Oh absolutely, I recognize that the DO is a real medical education, just with some woo added in. The US is an exception in that regard though, as osteopaths in other countries receive no real medical education and are on par with the naturopaths. 

 

Unfortunately, I believe that a significant enough portion of them buy into the nonsense which makes it harmful. I believe anyone viewed as a physician should disavow any unsubstantiated treatment options unequivocally because it is in the best interest of patients and the healthcare system as a whole in the long run. Sure, it may offend people in the short term but I don't think being shortsighted is a virtue when it comes to fighting crazy ideas. Just look at how rampant antivax pseudoscience, homeopathy, naturopathy, and chiropractic (to some extent- a little evidence for a few things but a lot of bizarre and debunked nonsense too) are becoming. I have a hard-line stance on this mostly because I am a scientist first. As soon as  you lend credibility to bad science like osteopathy, it tends to create a slippery slope. 

Anyways, back to the real reason I posted besides my clear opposition to non-evidence based 'medicine'. For OP, I think it would be a mistake to pursue a joint DO/PhD for several reasons. First, your options are really limited. MSU is one of the few credible PhD granting universities that offers both. Second, you are probably far better off doing your PhD in Canada first (if you are Canadian, OP). Not only will a PhD make you competitive for MD schools here, it also means you won't be paying international tuition which would be massive, I'm sure. There are also tons of funding opportunities in Canada that you would not be eligible for down in the states for your PhD (i.e. CIHR, provincial awards, university awards, etc.).

I can also tell you that having a DO and applying for academic positions in Canada (I assume this is the case because otherwise there isn't much point to doing both...) is probably not going to help you. There is undeniably a negative connotation there because of the nonsense aspects of osteopathy. You look far less credible as a clinician scientist with a DO than you would with an MD on paper, regardless of how little you may subscribe to osteopathic nonsense. Besides that, it would be much harder to get a residency placement back in Canada (it can be done of course, but not nearly as easily as it would be if you start an MD in Canada after a PhD).  Since OP has the desire to do a PhD, I just think it would be far better for their future to consider doing the PhD prior to medicine and keep trying to get into an MD program here. A PhD will give you at least another 4 years to become more competitive, and many schools like PhDs (i.e. extra points at UofA and UofC, separate review at UofT, etc.).

Lol, ask anyone who is actually in DO schools in the US, and they will say 90%+ of their class does not believe any of the pseudoscience. You're right about manual osteopaths - they are NOT physicians. In fact the Canadian Osteopathic Association openly warns the public that they are not the same thing as licensed physicians who trained at DO programs in the US.
 
Again, they just want to become doctors, they don't care about things they will never use in practice anyways nor for openly denouncing them while IN training.  No one is going to openly "disavow" parts of their curriculum that some of their very old professors may believe in. That is just stupid and unnecessarily putting a target on your own head.  Of course most will simply just not use it once graduated, simple solution.

Agreed, if you want a PhD do it in Canada. Though weather or not it will improve chances for a Canadian MD is questionable and school specific. Its not going make up for a crap GPA or an MCAT that doesnt meet the cut-offs etc, but it can help from a non-academic perspectives. Essentially it is school specific. 

I agree, if OP wants a PhD, do it in association with a Canadian MD program.   

The real question is, why does OP even want a PhD? If you aren't actually going to be a clinician scientist, or have the aptitude...why bother.