Comparing research activities of women and men faculty in departments of internal medicine

The findings from a questionnaire prepared by the Association of Professors of Medicine and the Association of American Medical Colleges were published in two reports in 1986 and 1987. These reports assessed the research activities of full-time members of departments of internal medicine in 1982 and 1983. The purpose of the present study was to analyze the data of the earlier reports in order to compare the research activities of women and men who were full-time faculty in departments of medicine during the time period originally surveyed. More than half of the faculty women who responded (52%) were less than 40 years old, compared with 23% of the faculty men. Sixty-seven percent of the women held the rank of instructor or assistant professor, in contrast to 40% of the men holding these ranks. Although the faculty of both genders reported generally the same proportions of time devoted to research, the women researchers with M.D. degrees had significantly less National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant support than did their counterparts who were men. Since this difference may have been a function of age, the authors compared NIH grant support of the faculty men and women with M.D. degrees who were 40-59 years old. Even in this older group, significantly fewer of the faculty women had NIH grant support than did the men (16% versus 30%). Furthermore, the percentage of designated laboratory space was significantly lower among the faculty women, regardless of degree (M.D., M.D./Ph.D., or Ph.D.). Further investigation is warranted to monitor the progress of women attempting to develop their research careers and to assess their overall clinical teaching and administrative roles in departments of medicine.     

The views of U.S. medical school deans toward academic primary care.

PURPOSE: To understand the views of U.S. medical school deans about their primary care faculties. METHOD: In 2000, the authors mailed a questionnaire containing 43 multipart items to deans of 130 U.S. allopathic medical schools. The questionnaire assessed the deans' attitudes about and evaluation of primary care at their school and their school's efforts to strengthen it. Deans were asked to compare family medicine, general internal medicine, and general pediatrics with nonprimary care clinical departments at their schools. RESULTS: Of the 83 (64%) deans who responded, 82% reported their school had departments or divisions of family medicine, general internal medicine, and general pediatrics. Deans rated general internal medicine and general pediatrics higher than nonprimary care faculty on clinical expertise and productivity (p < .001) and family medicine equivalent to nonprimary care faculty. Deans rated all three primary care faculties superior to nonprimary care faculty for teaching skills (p < .001) and programs (p < .05), but lower than nonprimary care disciplines for research productivity (p < .01) and revenues (p < .001). They rated family medicine and general pediatrics lower for research skills (p < .001), but 73% of deans stated research was equally important for primary care and nonprimary care departments. Deans considered overall financial resources to be equivalent for primary care and nonprimary care departments, but 77% of deans felt primary care departments or divisions needed financial support from the medical school to survive. Most deans attempted to strengthen primary care by changing the curriculum to promote primary care and by providing financial support. CONCLUSIONS: Deans ranked primary care faculty high on clinical and teaching measures. Although they considered research to be an important activity for primary care faculty, they evaluated it low relative to nonprimary care departments.     

Characteristics of medical school faculty members serving on institutional review boards: results of a national survey.

PURPOSE: To understand the characteristics of medical school faculty members who serve on institutional review boards (IRBs) in U.S. academic health centers. METHOD: Between October 2001 and March 2002, a questionnaire was mailed to a stratified random sample of 4,694 faculty members in 121 four-year medical schools in the United States (excluding Puerto Rico). The sample was drawn from the Association of American Medical College's faculty roster database for 1999. The primary independent variable was service on an IRB. Data were analyzed using standard statistical procedures. RESULTS: A total of 2,989 faculty members responded (66.5%). Eleven percent of respondents reported they had served on an IRB in the three years before the study. Of these, 73% were male, 81% were white (non-Hispanic). Virtually all faculty IRB members (94%) conducted some research in the three years before the study, and, among these, 71% reported conducting clinical research, and 47% served as industrial consultants to industry. Underrepresented minority faculty members were 3.2 times more likely than white faculty members to serve on the IRB. Clinical researchers were 1.64 times more likely to be on an IRB than were faculty members who conducted nonclinical research. No significant difference was found in the average number of articles published in the three years before the study comparing IRB faculty to non-IRB faculty. CONCLUSIONS: The faculty members who serve on IRBs tend to have research experience and knowledge that may be used to inform their IRB-related activities. However, the fact that almost half of all faculty IRB members serve as consultants to industry raises potential conflicts of interest.     

The impact of centers and institutes on faculty life: findings from a study of basic science and internal medicine faculty at research-intensive medical schools.

PURPOSE: To examine the impact of organized research centers on faculty productivity and work life for basic science and internal medicine faculty at research-intensive medical schools. METHOD: In 2005, the authors administered a questionnaire to a random stratified sample of full-time faculty in basic science and internal medicine departments at the top 40 research-intensive U.S. medical schools. The survey instrument asked faculty about the extent of their involvement in centers and institutes, the direction and extent of their activities, and their satisfaction with various dimensions of work. RESULTS: A total of 778 faculty members completed the questionnaire (72.0%). Basic science faculty with center affiliations produced more research publications and grants while devoting comparable effort to teaching as their non-center-affiliated peers. These faculty reported greater dissatisfaction in workload and in the mix of their activities. Internal medicine MD center-affiliated faculty were more productive in research activities and spent less effort in patient care and more effort in research than their non-center-affiliated peers. These faculty were more satisfied with promotion, opportunities for research, and the pace of their professional advancement. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that faculty from different departments and with different ranks and backgrounds interact with centers and institutes in multiple ways. For basic science faculty, center involvement appears to be an addition to, not a substitute for, their usual departmental obligations. For internal medicine MD faculty, center involvement appears to serve as an opportunity for protected effort in research away from the demands of clinical practice.     

The integrative family medicine program: an innovation in residency education.

The Integrative Family Medicine (IFM) Program is a four-year combined family medicine residency program and integrative medicine fellowship. It was created in 2003 to address the needs of four constituencies: patients who desire care from well trained integrative physicians, physicians who seek such training, the health care system which lacks a conventional integrative medicine training route, and educational leaders in family medicine who are seeking new strategies to reverse the declining interest in family medicine amongst U.S. graduates. The program was designed jointly by the University of Arizona Program in Integrative Medicine (PIM) and family medicine residency programs at Beth Israel/Albert Einstein College of Medicine (AECOM), Maine Medical Center, Middlesex Hospital, Oregon Health & Science University, and the Universities of Arizona and Wisconsin. One or two residents from each of these institutions may apply, and when selected, commit to extending their training by a fourth year. They complete their family medicine residencies at their home sites, enroll in the distributed learning associate fellowship at PIM, and are mentored by local faculty members who have training in integrative medicine. To date three classes totaling twenty residents have entered the program. Evaluation is performed jointly: PIM evaluates the residents during residential weeks and through online modules and residency faculty members perform direct observation of care and review treatment plans. Preliminary data suggest that the program enhances interest amongst graduating medical students in family medicine training. The Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education Family Medicine residency review committee has awarded the pilot experimental status.     

Development of a central division of general internal medicine

A division of general internal medicine was, by design, developed to be central to many of the activities of the department of medicine. Since 1979 the division has grown from five faculty members to 29 members and has the potential for substantial additional growth. The division provides approximately 70% of all inpatient teaching by attending physicians, provides all of the general medicine outpatient teaching, and has substantial impact on medical student training programs. The division is responsible for more than $1.5 million of clinical services and approximately 10% of hospital admissions, and it is responsible for approximately 40% of all patients on the general medicine service. Research activities are divided into several distinct modules, including medical informatics, clinical epidemiology, occupational medicine, geriatrics, medical competency testing, and ethics. The division receives approximately $1.2 million from external sources, including the federal government and foundations, for its research activities. Because of its success, it may serve as a potential model for similar divisions in other departments of medicine.     

A new faculty training model for countries developing academic family medicine programs

Medical schools in many countries wish to start academic programs in family medicine but do not have specifically trained faculty available. When the only medical school in Malta faced this situation, it agreed to try a new model for training potential faculty. This model was an intensive eight-month course for a selected group of ten experienced Maltese general practitioners to train in Malta with a visiting professor of family medicine. These adult learners were heavily involved in designing and contributing to an intensive course in family medicine and in teaching. Maltese teaching resources were used, and training occurred in the context of the society and health care system in which course members would ultimately teach. Subjective and objective measurements of course achievement were made. Results were compared with certification standards of the Canadian College of Family Physicians. This model merits consideration by other medical schools that wish to start academic programs in family medicine.     

The training and career paths of fellows in the National Research Service Award (NRSA) Program for Research in Primary Medical Care.

PURPOSE: To describe the training and career paths of fellows in the National Research Service Award (NRSA) Program for Research in Primary Medical Care. METHOD: All fellows who graduated from 25 NRSA programs nationally between July 1988 and June 1997 (n = 215) were mailed a questionnaire. Personal characteristics, fellowship experiences, and current professional positions were compared between faculty researchers, faculty clinician-educators, and individuals who were not in full-time academic positions. RESULTS: A total of 146 NRSA graduates (68%) completed the survey. A mean of four years had elapsed since their fellowships. Of the respondents, 36% were faculty researchers, 32% were faculty clinician-educators, and 32% were not on full-time faculties. Faculty researchers did not differ from the other groups in demographics or acquisition of advanced degrees, but they were more often general internists than general pediatricians, family physicians, or from other disciplines (p =.002). Fellowship graduates spent a mean of 29% of their training in course work and 38% conducting research. Faculty researchers spent a greater proportion of their fellowship conducting research (46% versus 34% for clinician-educators and 31% for those not on full-time faculties, respectively, p <.0001). They were also more productive in terms of subsequent publications and grant acquisitions. CONCLUSIONS: Only a minority of those completing NRSA programs held positions as faculty researchers. The preponderance of general internists among researchers may indicate problems in the capacity of general pediatrics and family medicine to support primary care research. The amounts of direct research time during these fellowships may need to be increased to enhance the likelihood of subsequent research success.     

The Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics of the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania: an organizational model for clinical research in a school of medicine

A new model for the conduct of clinical research was established at the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) School of Medicine, now the Perelman School of Medicine, through the development of the interdepartmental Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics in 1993 and the basic science Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology in 1994. The authors describe the development and evolution of these novel structures.Five key objectives were achieved with these structures' creation: (1) Clinical faculty have the opportunity to be identified as both clinicians and epidemiologists, (2) nonclinical faculty have an academic "home," (3) clinical trainees are now educated in population medicine, which promotes its incorporation into their clinical practice, (4) population medicine and clinical medicine have become fully integrated, and (5) better epidemiologic research is conducted, informed by clinical insights.Today's center is the primary home for epidemiology and biostatistics at Penn, linking epidemiology, biostatistics, clinical medicine, and the health sciences. The center's core faculty manage their own research programs, conduct primary research in epidemiology and biostatistics, serve as members of collaborative research teams, manage cores and service centers that support research projects, and lead graduate training programs in epidemiology and biostatistics. The department provides an academic home and structure for faculty, provides primary research in epidemiology and biostatistics, supports the center's mission, and provides training in biostatistics. This organizational approach has wide applicability across schools of medicine in the United States and abroad and has been a model for many.     

Are residents more comfortable than faculty members when addressing sociocultural diversity in medicine?

PURPOSE: Sociocultural medicine is a growing curricular area in medical education. Because faculty members and residents will teach these curricula and model these skills in patient care, it is important to assess their attitudes toward diversity. This study examined faculty members' and residents' attitudes toward sociocultural issues in medicine. METHOD: In November 2000, 198 physicians from the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School completed a questionnaire on demographics and sociocultural attitudes in medicine while they attended a department-wide retreat on cultural competency. A factor analysis of the sociocultural attitudes measure yielded five dimensions accounting for 70% of the variance. These factors included sexual orientation, diversity in professional functions, discussing race/ethnicity in teaching forums, clinical skills, and alternative medicine. RESULTS: Significant differences were found between faculty members and residents for sexual orientation issues (t = 2.76, p <.01) and alternative medicine (t = 2.84, p <.01), with residents endorsing greater comfort in these areas of patient care. When controlling for demographic/background variables, group differences disappeared. Past exposure to multiculturalism emerged as a significant predictor for both sociocultural attitude dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggested while residents felt more comfortable than faculty members did with sexual orientation and alternative medicine issues in medicine, attitudes may have been related more to previous diversity education than to seniority of the physician. Integrating diversity education within departments and across the medical education continuum likely benefits all physicians. In the area of sociocultural medicine, both faculty members and residents can offer perspectives valuable to medical students, colleagues, and the larger medical community.     

Manpower needs and supply in academic pathology

A survey of manpower supply and need in academic pathology departments was conducted by the Joint Task Force on Pathology Manpower of the College of American Pathologists, the American Society of Clinical Pathologists, and the Association of Pathology Chairmen by means of questionnaires distributed to chairmen and faculty of all departments of pathology and laboratory medicine in the United States. Of the 136 departments, responses were obtained from 131 (96%) chairmen and from 1,561 (45%) faculty members. The current total need for faculty members (funded vacant positions) is 272, and the projected aggregate need over the next five years is 693 members for new and replacement positions. The greatest needs are for research MD pathologists and surgical pathologists, followed by autopsy and chemical pathologists. Based on the estimate of current pathology trainees planning academic careers, there is a strong indication that the projected supply of MD pathologists is significantly less than the anticipated demand.     

A consortium-based research education program for residents.

With growing pressures to consolidate and reorganize health care delivery systems, graduate medical education (GME) consortia can draw faculty from affiliated members to assemble educational programs. The authors report on consortium-based research education seminars of a quality that many residency programs would be unable to develop and support on their own. Drawing a diverse faculty from consortium members and area universities, the OHEP Center for Medical Education's annual Research Workshop Series focuses on the design of research projects; data analysis and hypothesis testing; and written and oral presentation of scientific research. Each spring, OHEP sponsors a research forum in which the best research projects from consortium members are presented by the resident-researchers, who compete for recognition and prize money. Further, of the 128 presentations made thus far at the annual OHEP Research Forum, 25% were subsequently published. The consortium's research education program has been well received by residents, is cost-effective, and is an integral component of the research curricula of many area residency programs. Including research training in GME provides residents an opportunity to become more competitive for fellowship, faculty, and leadership positions.     

Does stereotype threat affect women in academic medicine?

Multiple complex factors contribute to the slow pace of women's advancement into leadership positions in academic medicine. In this article, the authors propose that stereotype threat--under which individuals who are members of a group characterized by negative stereotypes in a particular domain perform below their actual abilities in that domain when group membership is emphasized--may play an important role in the underrepresentation of women in leadership positions in academic medicine. Research to objectively assess the impact of stereotype threat for women in academic medicine is feasible and necessary to confirm this hypothesis. Still, a number of conditions present in the academic medicine community today have been shown to trigger stereotype threat in other settings, and stereotype threat fits with existing research on gender in academic medicine. In the meantime, academic health centers should implement relatively simple measures supported by experimental evidence from other settings to reduce the risk of stereotype threat, including (1) introducing the concept of stereotype threat to the academic medicine community, (2) engaging all stakeholders, male and female, to promote identity safety by enacting and making faculty aware of policies to monitor potential instances of discrimination, and training faculty to provide performance feedback that is free of gender bias, (3) counteracting the effects of sex segregation at academic health centers by increasing exposure to successful female leaders, (4) reducing gender stereotype priming by avoiding stereotypically male criteria for promotion, grants, and awards, and (5) building leadership efficacy among female physicians and scientists.     

The primary care specialties working together: a model of success in an academic environment.

In today's environment of decreasing resources and increasing competition among clinical delivery systems, survival and ultimate success require interdisciplinary cooperation and, if possible, integration. Academic leaders at the University of California, Irvine (UCI), have developed a collaborative model in which faculty in family medicine, general internal medicine, and general pediatrics cooperate extensively in education, research, and patient care. Generalist faculty jointly administer and teach both a four-year "doctoring" curriculum for medical students and an array of integrated curricula for primary care residents, including a communication skills course. Several primary faculty jointly developed a collaborative unit for health policy and research, now an active locus for multidisciplinary research. Other faculty worked together to develop a primary care medical group that serves as a model for interdisciplinary practice at UCI. Recently, the university recruited an associate dean for primary care who leads the new UCI Primary Care Coalition, reflecting and promoting this interspecialty cooperation. This coalition does not represent a step toward a generic primary care specialty; UCI's generalist disciplines have preserved their individual identities and structures. Yet interdisciplinary collaboration has allowed primary care faculty to share educational resources, a research infrastructure, and clinical systems, thus avoiding duplicative use of valuable resources while maximizing collective negotiating abilities and mutual success.     

Academic medicine in a southern African country of Malawi

Academic medicine is usually considered to be a tripartite composition of teaching, research, and health care services delivery or patient care. The meaning of each component varies with interpretation. Developing countries such as Malawi face particular challenges in the field of academic medicine, including research resources, financing, and the brain drain of health human resources. Such constraints contribute to reduced numbers of faculty members, poor remuneration and diminished capabilities for career advancement. Addressing the issues currently plaguing academic medicine will enable this essential and multi-faceted discipline to flourish.     

Academic promotion at a medical school. Experience at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

We studied promotions at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine to determine whether clinician-teachers are less likely to be promoted or are promoted later in life than researchers and whether those who are promoted have more articles published than those who are not promoted. Over a five-year period, 93 percent of candidates for the rank of associate professor and 79 percent of the candidates for the rank of professor were promoted. There were no significant differences between clinical and research faculty members in terms of the probability that they would be promoted or their age at promotion to either associate professor or professor. Despite these findings, the responses to a questionnaire indicated that former faculty members perceived clinician-teachers as less likely than researchers to be promoted. Those who were promoted had had about twice as many articles published in peer-reviewed journals as those who were not promoted. We recommend improved counseling of medical school faculty members and more extensive discussion of the criteria for promotion and the chances of academic success.     

Scholarship in the medical faculty from the university perspective: retaining academic values.

Academic medicine and research universities have enjoyed a close relationship that has strengthened both, spawning an era of discovery and scholarship in medicine that has earned the U.S. academic medical enterprise a high level of public trust and a deserved leadership position in the world. However, changes in the financing of medical care and in the organization of health care delivery have dramatically affected the medical school-university partnership. The growing emphasis on delivery of clinical services and the concomitant decrease in time for tenured and clinician-educator faculty to teach and do scholarly work jeopardizes both the potential for continued discovery and the education of the next generation of medical scholars. The background of the medical school-university relationship and the factors leading to the development of clinician-educator faculty tracks are reviewed, and recent trends that impact faculty scholarship are discussed. Both tenure-track and clinician-educator medical faculty, as members of the broader university community, should expect from their university colleagues a continued demand for scholarship and educational activity that reflects the underlying philosophy of the parent university. As a corollary, the university, through its medical school, must provide these faculty the time and the financial support necessary to fulfill their academic mission. The size of the clinician-educator faculty should be determined by the academic needs of the medical school rather than by the service demands of its associated health care delivery system. To accomplish this, academic medical centers will have to develop cadres of associated or clinical faculty whose primary focus is on the practice of medicine.