目的：通过比较临床医学研究生（毕业前）与临床医学研究型医师（毕业后初入职）在临床研究能力方面的差异，评估现行研究生培养模式与国家临床研究发展需求的匹配度，为优化人才培养体系提供依据。方法：于2025年1−6月采用问卷调查法，对某院290名临床医学研究生和390名临床医学研究型医师进行调查。问卷涵盖能力认知、资源获取、现实挑战等维度。使用SPSS 26.0软件进行统计分析。结果：2组对临床研究能力重要性的认同无统计学差异（94.87%比96.41%，χ²=1.02，P=0.31），但能力结构存在阶段性特征：临床医学研究生更关注临床问题转化（85.52%）与研究设计（70.34%），而临床医学研究型医师更注重研究方法深化与项目管理（59.49%）。影响因素分析显示，科研资源获取（项目资助：28.28%比86.67%，χ²=247.32，P<0.001；数据支持：42.76%比65.13%，χ²=32.66，P<0.001）、系统科研指导（38.62%比62.56%，χ²=37.65，P<0.001）及科研时间保障（79.31%比59.49%，χ²=28.67，P<0.001）是造成群体间能力差异的关键因素。结论：现行临床医学研究生培养模式在科研资源供给、系统性指导及时间保障方面，与毕业后刚入职阶段的能力要求存在衔接上的缺口。建议从分阶段赋能、资源倾斜、机制创新等方面优化培养路径，以更好满足“健康中国”战略对高水平临床研究人才的迫切需求。

Objective To evaluate the alignment of the current clinical medicine postgraduate training model with the national demand for clinical research development by comparing the differences in clinical research competencies between clinical medicine postgraduates (pre-graduation) and clinical-research-track physicians (early career), thereby providing a reference for optimizing the talent training system. Methods A questionnaire survey was conducted among 290 clinical medicine postgraduates and 390 clinical-research-track physicians in a hospital between January and June 2025. The questionnaire covered dimensions including competency perception, resource acquisition, and practical challenges. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 26.0 software. Results There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in their recognition of the importance of clinical research competency (94.87% vs. 96.41%, χ²= 1.02, P=0.31). However, stage-specific characteristics were observed in competency structure: clinical medicine postgraduates were more concerned with clinical problem translation (85.52%) and research design (70.34%), while clinical-research-track physicians placed greater emphasis on deepening research methods and project management (59.49%). Analysis of influencing factors revealed that access to research resources (project funding: 28.28% vs. 86.67%, χ²=247.32, P<0.001; data support: 42.76% vs. 65.13%, χ²=32.66, P<0.001), systematic research guidance (38.62% vs. 62.56%, χ²=37.65, P<0.001), and guaranteed research time (79.31% vs. 59.49%, χ²=28.67, P<0.001) were key factors contributing to the competency differences between the groups (P<0.05). Conclusions The current clinical medicine postgraduate training model has transition gaps with the competency requirements of the early post-graduation career in the supply of research resources, systematic guidance, and time guarantee. It is suggested to optimize the training pathway through staged empowerment, resource allocation, and mechanism innovation to better meet the urgent demand for high-level clinical research talents under the “Healthy China” strategy.