Exploring factors associated with scholarly writing among US pharmacy practice faculty

ObjectivesThis study explored intrinsic facilitators (i.e., grit, self-efficacy, and writing motivation) and barriers associated with scholarly output as measured by self-reported publications among US pharmacy practice faculty.MethodsA cross-sectional study design was used to gather information regarding scholarly writing output and intrinsic facilitators and barriers among US pharmacy practice faculty using an online self-reported survey. The survey link was distributed via email between October and November 2017. The Grit-S, New Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (NGSE), and Scholarly Writing Motivation Scale (SWMS) were used to measure grit, self-efficacy, and writing motivation, respectively. Perceived barriers, self-reported quantity of publications, and demographics were also collected. A structural equation modeling (SEM) approach was used to determine effects of perceived barriers and each intrinsic factor on self-reported total publications.ResultsN = 208 participants were included in the analyses. The average number of self-reported annual publications was 1.88. Participants who reported having higher than average numbers of annual publications (n = 85, 40.9%) more frequently held a PhD degree and were more frequently in the tenure track, compared to those with annual publications less than the average (n = 123, 59.1%). The majority of both groups reported being employed in public institutions. Lack of time for scholarly writing was the highest perceived barrier and lack of knowledge about technical writing/English mastery was the lowest. All three SEM models consistently showed that perceived barriers were negatively associated with numbers of self-reported publications. However, only scholarly writing motivation according to SWMS was positively associated with the numbers of self-reported publications.ConclusionsWriting motivation and barriers to scholarly writing are shown to have a significant impact on scholarly output. These factors can be identified and should be appropriately addressed by colleges/schools of pharmacy to enhance scholarly activities among pharmacy practice faculty.     

Faculty Have Few Incentives for Becoming Board Certified in Pharmacotherapy

A telephone survey of all colleges of pharmacy in the United States (including Puerto Rico) and Canada was conducted to assess the incentives offered for pharmacy practice faculty to become board-certified pharmacotherapy specialists (BCPS). Board certification is not a requirement for employment at any college of pharmacy; however, it plays a part in promotion, tenure, and merit salary increases at several schools. Fewer than half of the schools provide at least partial reimbursement of examination-related expenses. Sixteen have initiated BCPS study groups. We perceive that faculty must have more incentives to take the examination. It may be difficult to change institutional policies regarding merit increases or promotion and tenure, but colleges of pharmacy can do more to decrease the cost burden and to promote study groups within the department.     

Faculty Awards at US Colleges and Schools of Pharmacy

Objectives

To determine recognition given for outstanding teaching, service, and scholarship at US colleges and schools of pharmacy, the types of awards given, and the process used to select the recipients.

Methods

A self-administered questionnaire was made available online in 2006 to deans at 89 colleges and schools of pharmacy.

Results

Sixty-four usable responses (72%) were obtained. An award to acknowledge teaching excellence was most commonly reported (92%), followed by an award for adjunct/volunteer faculty/preceptors (79%). The majority of the institutions (31 out of 58) reported offering 1 teaching award annually. The 2 most common methods for selecting the recipient of the teaching award were by student vote and by college/school committee vote following nominations. Twenty-four of the 63 respondents indicated that their institution provided an award for research/scholarship and 18 offered an award for outstanding service.

Conclusions

Teaching excellence was recognized and rewarded at most US colleges and schools of pharmacy; however, research/scholarship and service were formally recognized less frequently.     

A 5-Year Analysis of Peer-Reviewed Journal Article Publications of Pharmacy Practice Faculty Members

Objectives. To evaluate scholarship, as represented by peer-reviewed journal articles, among US pharmacy practice faculty members; contribute evidence that may better inform benchmarking by academic pharmacy practice departments; and examine factors that may be related to publication rates.Methods. Journal articles published by all pharmacy practice faculty members between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2010, were identified. College and school publication rates were compared based on public vs. private status, being part of a health science campus, having a graduate program, and having doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) faculty members funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).Results. Pharmacy practice faculty members published 6,101 articles during the 5-year study period, and a pharmacy practice faculty member was the primary author on 2,698 of the articles. Pharmacy practice faculty members published an average of 0.51 articles per year. Pharmacy colleges and schools affiliated with health science campuses, at public institutions, with NIH-funded PharmD faculty members, and with graduate programs had significantly higher total publication rates compared with those that did not have these characteristics (p<0.006).Conclusion. Pharmacy practice faculty members contributed nearly 6,000 unique publications over the 5-year period studied. However, this reflects a rate of less than 1 publication per faculty member per year, suggesting that a limited number of faculty members produced the majority of publications.     

A critical appraisal of and recommendations for faculty development

The 2009-2010 American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) Council of Faculties Faculty Affairs Committee reviewed published literature assessing the scope and outcomes of faculty development for tenure and promotion. Relevant articles were identified via a PubMed search, review of pharmacy education journals, and identification of position papers from major healthcare professions academic organizations. While programs intended to enhance faculty development were described by some healthcare professions, relatively little specific to pharmacy has been published and none of the healthcare professions have adequately evaluated the impact of various faculty-development programs on associated outcomes.The paucity of published information strongly suggests a lack of outcomes-oriented faculty-development programs in colleges and schools of pharmacy. Substantial steps are required toward the development and scholarly evaluation of faculty-development programs. As these programs are developed and assessed, evaluations must encompass all faculty subgroups, including tenure- and nontenure track faculty members, volunteer faculty members, women, and underrepresented minorities. This paper proposes AACP, college and school, and department-level recommendations intended to ensure faculty success in achieving tenure and promotion.     

Perceptions of Tenure and Tenure Reform in Academic Pharmacy

Objectives. To determine the academic pharmacy community’s perceptions of and recommendations for tenure and tenure reform.Methods. A survey instrument was administered via either a live interview or an online survey instrument to selected members of the US academic pharmacy community.Results. The majority of respondents felt that tenure in academic pharmacy was doing what it was intended to do, which is to provide academic freedom and allow for innovation (59.6%). Respondents raised concern over the need for faculty mentoring before and after achieving tenure, whether tenure adequately recognized service, and that tenure was not the best standard for recognition and achievement. The majority (63%) agreed that tenure reform was needed in academic pharmacy, with the most prevalent recommendation being to implement post-tenure reviews. Some disparities in opinions of tenure reform were seen in the subgroup analyses of clinical science vs basic science faculty members, public vs private institutions, and administrators vs nonadministrators.Conclusions. The majority of respondents want to see tenure reformed in academic pharmacy.     

Ten Tips for Pharmacy Faculty Members for Successfully Navigating Promotion and Tenure

This paper presents 10 key tips or recommendations for successful navigation of the promotion and tenure process. The 10 key tips are: know institutional expectations, develop an action plan at least two to three years in advance; identify your balance of teaching, scholarship, service; synergize activities and develop a niche; prioritize time to activities of high-impact to promotion and tenure; track achievements in the format expected for promotion and tenure application; seek out faculty guidance on promotion and tenure; meet with mentor(s) regularly to review progress; have a well-written personal statement; and have your final dossier reviewed by colleagues. Faculty members are more likely to be successful through timely and appropriate planning, balancing and synergizing activities, tracking activities and achievements, developing a well-written personal statement, and requesting help from experienced colleagues.     

Education,Training, and Academic Experience of Newly Hired,First-Time Pharmacy Faculty Members

Objective. To describe the education, training, and academic experiences of newly hired faculty members at US colleges and schools of pharmacy during the 2012-2013 academic year.Methods. A survey regarding education, training, and academic experiences was conducted of all first-time faculty members at US colleges and schools of pharmacy hired during the 2012-2013 academic year.Results. Pharmacy practice faculty members accounted for the majority (68.2%) of new hires. Ambulatory care was the most common pharmacy specialty position (29.8%). Most new faculty members had a doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) as their terminal degree (74.8%), and 88.3% of pharmacy practice faculty members completed a residency. Of new faculty members who responded to the survey, 102 (67.5%) had at least 3 prior academic teaching, precepting, or research experiences.Conclusion. New faculty members were hired most frequently for clinical faculty positions at the assistant professor level and most frequently in the specialty of ambulatory care. Prior academic experience included precepting pharmacy students, facilitating small discussions, and guest lecturing.     

A Bibliometric Analysis of Peer-Reviewed Journal Publications of Pharmacy Practice Department Chairs

Objective. To perform a bibliometric analysis of pharmacy practice department chairs at US schools and colleges of pharmacy to determine factors associated with their level of scholarly productivity.Methods. Scopus was searched for all publications by pharmacy practice chairs from all pharmacy schools through August 11, 2020. Publication metrics (total number of publications and citations and the Hirsch-index (h-index), and year of first publication), as well as characteristics of the individual chair and institution were collected. Characteristics were compared across groups. A generalized linear model was used to determine the correlation between the total number of publications and h-index to school ranking by US News & World Report (USNWR).Results. One hundred forty-one pharmacy practice chairs were identified. The majority were male and at the rank of professor, with a similar proportion from public and private institutions. The median total number of publications and citations was 19 and 247, respectively, with a median h-index of eight. Compared with female chairs, male chairs had a higher median total of publications and citations and a higher h-index. Chairs at public institutions had a higher median total of publications and citations and a higher publication rate, h-index, and m quotient. The USNWR ranking for the school was significantly correlated with total publications and the h-index.Conclusion. Pharmacy practice chairs vary significantly in their scholarship productivity, although those at institutions with a larger emphasis on research were more prolific. Observed differences in the publication metrics of male and female chairs warrants further study to determine possible explanations for this finding and its potential impact.     

Perceived Barriers to Scholarship and Research Among Pharmacy Practice Faculty: Survey Report from the AACP Scholarship/Research Faculty Development Task Force

Objectives

To identify problems that pharmacy practice faculty members face in pursuing scholarship and to develop and recommend solutions.

Methods

Department chairs were asked to forward a Web-based survey instrument to their faculty members. Global responses and responses stratified by demographics were summarized and analyzed.

Results

Between 312 and 340 faculty members answered questions that identified barriers to scholarship and recommended corrective strategies to these barriers. The most common barrier was insufficient time (57%), and the most common recommendation was for help to “identify a research question and how to answer it.” Sixty percent reported that scholarship was required for advancement but only 32% thought scholarship should be required. Forty-one percent reported that the importance of scholarship is overemphasized.

Conclusions

These survey results provide guidance to improve the quantity and quality of scholarship for faculty members who wish to pursue scholarship, although many of the survey respondents indicated they did not regard scholarship as a priority.     

Quantifying Published Scholarly Works of Experiential Education Directors

Objective. To determine the amount and potential impact of scholarly works that directors of experiential education in US colleges and schools of pharmacy have published since 2001.Methods. A search in Web of Science was used to identify publications and citations for the years 2001-2011 by experiential education directors as identified by the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) Roster of Faculty and Professional Staff in 2011. Publication productivity was analyzed by position title, faculty rank, and type of institution (public vs private, research vs nonresearch-intensive). Types of published works were characterized, related citations were identified, and a reported h-index was collected for each person who published during this period.Results. Ninety-seven of 226 (43%) experiential education directors published 344 scholarly works which had received 1841 citations, for an average of 1 publication every 3 years and an average citation rate of 5.3 per publication. Directors at publicly funded and research-intensive institutions published slightly more than did their counterparts at private and nonresearch-intensive schools. Publications were concentrated in 6 journals with a weighted mean publication impact factor of 1.5.Conclusion. Many experiential education directors have published scholarly works even though their titles and ranks vary widely. While the quantity of such works may not be large, the impact is similar to that of other pharmacy practice faculty members. These results could be used to characterize the scholarly performance of experiential education directors in recent years as well as to establish a culture of scholarship in this emerging career track within pharmacy education.     

Barriers to scholarship in dentistry, medicine, nursing, and pharmacy practice faculty

There has been an increased emphasis on scholarly activities by health sciences faculty members given the importance of the promotion of public health over the last 50 years. Consequently, faculty members are required to place greater emphasis on scholarly activities while maintaining their teaching and service responsibilities. This increasing requirement of scholarly activities has placed great demands on clinical practice faculty members and it has made their management of clinical practice, teaching responsibilities, and expectations for promotion and tenure a difficult task. This retrospective literature review identifies barriers to the scholarship activities of clinical faculty members in dentistry, medicine, nursing, and pharmacy and discusses strategies for enabling faculty members to pursue scholarly activities in the current health science academic environment. The review indicates commonalities of barriers across these 4 disciplines and suggests strategies that could be implemented by all of these disciplines to enable clinical practice faculty members to pursue scholarly activities.     

Inclusion of Health Disparities,Cultural Competence,and Health Literacy Content in US and Canadian Pharmacy Curriculums

Objective. To determine how US and Canadian pharmacy schools include content related to health disparities and cultural competence and health literacy in curriculum as well as to review assessment practices.Methods. A cross-sectional survey was distributed to 143 accredited and candidate-status pharmacy programs in the United States and 10 in Canada in three phases. Statistical analysis was performed to assess inter-institutional variability and relationships between institutional characteristics and survey results.Results. After stratification by institutional characteristics, no significant differences were found between the 72 (50%) responding institutions in the United States and the eight (80%) in Canada. A core group of faculty typically taught health disparities and cultural competence content and/or health literacy. Health disparities and cultural competence was primarily taught in multiple courses across multiple years in the pre-APPE curriculum. While health literacy was primarily taught in multiple courses in one year in the pre-APPE curriculum in Canada (75.0%), delivery of health literacy was more varied in the United States, including in a single course (20.0%), multiple courses in one year (17.1%), and multiple courses in multiple years (48.6%). Health disparities and cultural competence and health literacy was mostly taught at the introduction or reinforcement level. Active-learning approaches were mostly used in the United States, whereas in Canada active learning was more frequently used in teaching health literacy (62.5%) than health disparities and cultural competence (37.5%). Few institutions reported providing professional preceptor development.Conclusion. The majority of responding pharmacy schools in the United States and Canada include content on health disparities and cultural competence content and health literacy to varying degrees; however, less is required and implemented within experiential programs and the co-curriculum. Opportunities remain to expand and apply information on health disparities and cultural competence content and health literacy content, particularly outside the didactic curriculum, as well as to identify barriers for integration.     

Pharmaceutical Science Faculty Publication Records at Research-Intensive Pharmacy Colleges and Schools

Objective. To determine yearly (phase 1) and cumulative (phase 2) publication records of pharmaceutical science faculty members at research-intensive colleges and schools of pharmacy.Methods. The publication records of pharmaceutical science faculty members at research-intensive colleges and schools of pharmacy were searched on Web of Science. Fifty colleges and schools of pharmacy were randomly chosen for a search of 1,042 individual faculty members’ publications per year from 2005 to 2009. A stratified random sample of 120 faculty members also was chosen, and cumulative publication counts were recorded and bibliometric indices calculated.Results. The median number of publications per year was 2 (range, 0-34). Overall, 22% of faculty members had no publications in any given year, but the number was highly variable depending on the faculty members’ colleges or schools of pharmacy. Bibliometric indices were higher for medicinal chemistry and pharmaceutics, with pharmacology ranking third and social and administrative sciences fourth. Higher bibliometric indices were also observed for institution status (ie, public vs private) and academic rank (discipline chairperson vs non-chairperson and professor vs junior faculty member) (p<0.01 for each). The median number of cumulative publications per faculty member was 34 (range, 0-370).Conclusion. Significant differences exist in yearly and cumulative publication rates for faculty members and bibliometric indices among pharmaceutical science disciplines and academic ranks within research-intensive colleges and schools of pharmacy. These data may be important for benchmarking purposes.     

Academic Progression and Retention Policies of Colleges and Schools of Pharmacy

Objective. To describe academic progression and retention policies used by US colleges and schools of pharmacy.Methods. Student handbooks on the Web sites of 122 colleges and schools of pharmacy were reviewed between February 2012 and May 2012.Results. Data were available and obtained from 98 (80%) programs. Most used grade point average (GPA) as a criterion for progression, with 66% requiring a minimum GPA of 2.0. Cumulative GPA was the most frequently used criteria for probation. Most handbooks did not address remediation, but 38% noted that a failed course could only be retaken once. The most common criteria for dismissal were the cumulative number of times a student was on probation. The graduation requirements of most programs were a cumulative GPA of 2.0 and completion of the program within 6 years of enrollment. Conclusions. Colleges and schools of pharmacy use various criteria for academic progression and retention and frequently provide incomplete or inadequate information related to probation, progression, and dismissal. Information regarding remediation and academic performance during experiential learning is lacking. A clearinghouse containing institutional data related to progression and retention would assist programs in developing academic policies. The study also highlights the need for ACPE to ensure this information is provided to students.     

Comparison of Introductory Pharmacy Practice Experiences Among US Pharmacy Programs

Objective. To identify the various IPPE designs utilized by US pharmacy programs.Methods. A 20-question survey was developed and distributed to experiential affairs professionals at 129 pharmacy institutions nationwide addressing school demographics and IPPE design. Results were analyzed in aggregate.Results. Ninety-three schools responded (72%). Eighty-nine percent of those reported beginning IPPE experiences in the first professional year, although there was a great variation regarding whether the IPPE was held while didactic classes were in session or during school breaks. The number of required practice experiences varied. Institutions prohibited students from completing rotations in the same pharmacy chain (72%) or hospital (70%) where employed, and from completing 2 rotations at the same site (62%). Fifty-seven percent utilized faculty members as preceptors. 51% allowed a maximum of 2 students per preceptor per practice experience.Conclusion. While clear trends existed in IPPE curricula, institutions incorporated aspects that addressed unique needs. Further research can determine the benefits and drawbacks of different IPPE designs.     

An Analysis of Community Pharmacy Shared Faculty Members’ Contributions to Teaching,Service, and Scholarship

Objective. To identify community pharmacy shared faculty members across the United States and to describe their roles and responsibilities in terms of teaching, service, and scholarship.Methods. This study was a mixed-methods analysis using surveys and key informant interviews.Results. Twenty-two faculty members completed the survey; nine were interviewed. Their major roles and responsibilities included teaching in community-based and experiential learning courses, precepting students and/or residents, being actively involved in professional organizations, providing patient care while leading innovation, and disseminating findings through scholarship.Conclusion. Community pharmacy shared faculty members contribute to their academic institutions and community pharmacy organizations by educating learners, providing direct patient care, and advancing community practice through innovation and service to the profession. Findings of this study can be used as a guide for academic institutions and community pharmacy organizations interested in partnering to develop a community pharmacy shared faculty position.