Criteria of the "educators' pyramid" fulfilled by medical school faculty promoted on a teaching pathway.

PURPOSE: To compare the results of academic promotion to associate professor and professor via the teaching pathway at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine (WFUSM) with the criteria of the "educators' pyramid" of Sachdeva et al. METHOD: Data on all candidates promoted to associate professor and professor in the academic years 1995-2000 at WFUSM were collected from candidates' portfolios and compared with the criteria for educator (level three) and master educator (level four) from a modified version of the educators' pyramid. RESULTS: Of 186 faculty promoted, 38 were on the teaching pathway. Everyone promoted on the pathway fulfilled all teacher and master teacher criteria. All educator criteria were found among the associate professors, and all but one of the master educator criteria were found among professors. More than 75% of associate professors demonstrated "sustained participation in significant amounts of effective teaching in more than one modality" and "service as a medical student clerkship, course, or residency director." Less than 30% demonstrated "service as assistant dean of education or student affairs" or "service as the chair of departmental education committees." Most associate professors had not regularly participated in national education meetings. For professors, more than 50% demonstrated "achievement of leadership positions in national organizations, committees, and medical school education"; "recognition as a national leader in specialty education"; and "mentorship of other faculty members locally and nationally." Less than 30% demonstrated "pursuit of further training in education through workshops, faculty development programs, or educational fellowship programs" or "development and implementation of nationally-recognized (in education) innovative curricula or teaching programs." No one promoted to professor on the teaching pathway had made what was considered to be a landmark contribution to educational research and development. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that the educators' pyramid is generalizable to medical faculty being promoted on a teaching pathway at WFUSM. Documentation of achievement in teaching criteria is essential and faculty should be encouraged to maintain records of accomplishment before becoming candidates for promotion.     

Women physicians in academic medicine: new insights from cohort studies

BACKGROUND: I conducted a study to determine whether women who graduate from medical schools are more or less likely than their male counterparts to pursue full-time careers in academic medicine and to advance to the senior ranks of medical school faculties. METHODS: The rates of advancement to the ranks of assistant, associate, and full professor for all U.S. medical school graduates from 1979 through 1993 and for all members of U.S. medical school faculties from 1979 through 1997 were studied. Cohorts were defined on the basis of the year of graduation from medical school, track (tenure or nontenure), and academic department. Within each cohort, the number of women who advanced to a senior rank was compared with the number that would be expected on the basis of parity between men and women, and 95 percent confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: Women were significantly more likely than men to pursue an academic career. During the study period, 634 more women became faculty members than expected. The numbers were higher in the older cohorts than in the younger cohorts. The numbers of women who advanced to the ranks of associate and full professor were significantly lower than the expected numbers. This was true for both tenure and nontenure tracks, even after adjustment for the department. A total of 334 fewer women advanced to associate professor than expected, and 44 fewer women advanced to full professor than expected. CONCLUSIONS: Disparities persist in the advancement of men and women on medical school faculties. However, the numbers of women physicians at all levels of academic medicine are increasing.     

A conceptual model for faculty development in academic medicine: the underrepresented minority faculty experience

In May 2010, the Association of American Medical Colleges reported that nonwhite professors have a lower promotion rate than white professors. A cohort of 30 underrepresented minority (URM) junior faculty who participated in a structured faculty development program at a public, research-intensive, academic medical center were followed in a 10-year longitudinal study. This paper reports on the career status of 12 of the 30 URM faculty who were eligible for promotion during this period. Ninety-two percent (11/12) of URM faculty eligible for promotion were promoted to associate professor. When asked what factors contributed to their success, these URM faculty identified access and support of senior faculty mentors, peer networking, professional skill development, and knowledge of institutional culture. A faculty development program that addresses these components can promote the success of URM faculty in academic medicine.     

Results of an academic promotion and career path survey of faculty at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

PURPOSE: Clinician-educator faculty are increasing in numbers in academic medical centers, but their academic advancement is slower than that of research faculty. The authors sought to quantify the magnitude of this difference in career advancement and to explore the characteristics of faculty that might explain the difference. METHOD: In 1999, a questionnaire was administered to all MD faculty at the rank of instructor and above (259) in the Department of Medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. RESULTS: A total of 180 (69%) faculty returned questionnaires. Of these, 178 identified with one of four career paths: basic researcher (46), clinical researcher (69), academic clinician (38), or teacher-clinician (25). Career path did not differ by age, gender, rank, years on faculty, hours worked per week, family responsibility, or global work satisfaction. After adjusting for age, gender, time at rank, and work satisfaction, the odds of being at a higher rank were 85% less for academic clinicians (odds ratio,.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.40) and 69% less for teacher-clinicians (odds ratio,.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.88) than for basic researchers. Clinical researchers did not differ from basic researchers in the likelihood of being at higher rank. Similarly, compared with basic research faculty, the adjusted odds of being more satisfied with progress towards academic promotion were 92% lower for academic clinicians and 87% lower for teacher-clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Clinician-educator faculty were less likely to be at higher rank at this institution than were faculty in research paths. Differences in rank may be explained by lower rank at hire for faculty in these career paths, time available for scholarly activities, or other resources available to support scholarship. Retaining clinician-educators will require further exploration of barriers to promotion inherent to these career paths and methods of modifying these barriers.     

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.     

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.     

Top producers of scholarly publications in clinical psychology PhD programs

Publication productivity of 1,927 core faculty members in clinical psychology training programs was tallied over a 5-year period (2000-2004) from their PsycINFO database entries (http://www.apa.org/psycinfo/). The top-producing faculty members are presented with rank by total number of publications and rank by number of peer-reviewed journal articles. In this report, the authors recognize those productive clinical psychologists in accredited clinical programs who have advanced the field through their substantial contributions to the literature base.     

Mentors in graduate medical education at the Medical College of Wisconsin

In 1988, 40 senior faculty members at the Medical College of Wisconsin were surveyed to determine their perceptions of the extent and benefits of mentor relationships between faculty and residents. Seventy-eight percent thought mentor activity was feasible in their own departments; however, only 18% felt that a majority of residents in their departments had a mentor. Seventy-five percent reported having been a mentor, and 90% indicated they had a mentor either currently or previously. All 25 faculty who reported having a mentor felt that this arrangement had assisted them in their career advancement, 88% reported it had enhanced their personal development, and 72% indicated the relationship had helped them deal with stress. The mentor relationship appears to have significant benefits for the medical trainee and should be promoted.     

Mentoring women in academic surgery: overcoming institutional barriers to success

Women now comprise 50% of Caucasian matriculants to medical school; 66.6% of African Americans, 48% of Hispanics and 51.3% of Asians beginning medical school are also women. This trend is likely to continue since women now earn 57% of all undergraduate degrees, and they earn more degrees in the health professions and biological sciences than men. Black and Hispanic women now earn 66% and 60% of bachelor's degrees in their respective ethnic groups. Overall, women are concentrated at the lowest faculty ranks at medical schools, with 70% holding the rank of instructor or assistant professor. Women continue to experience difficulty with recruitment, retention, promotion and pay issues compared to men. They also experience additional gender-specific issues, including primary responsibility for rearing families and quality-of-life issues in some specialties, including most of the surgical disciplines. Clearly, there is an evolving population shift at work here; the pool of candidates for medical school faculty positions is likely to be evenly split between men and women for Caucasians, Hispanics and Asians, while the African-American pool is likely heavily weighted in favor of the women. Women are beginning to garner more Latin honors recognition at graduation as well and the definition of the "best and the brightest" is being redefined. Therefore, institutions must continue to identify the barriers that deter women from entering surgery, to develop research tools to understand how to improve the process of developing leadership skills among women and to insure a "buy-in" of their male counterparts when components of the plan are being implemented.     

PhD faculty in clinical departments of U.S. medical schools, 1981-1999: their widening presence and roles in research.

PURPOSE: To analyze the growth, research activities, and academic status of PhD faculty in U. S. medical school clinical departments between 1981 and 1999. METHOD: Full-time U.S. medical school faculty who had PhDs and appointments in clinical departments in 1981 and 1999 and junior PhD faculty who became assistant professors between 1981 and 1990 were selected from the Faculty Roster System of the Association of American Medical Colleges. Their research activities and academic statuses were compared with those of MD or MD/PhD faculty in clinical departments or PhD faculty in basic science departments in the same years. RESULTS: The number of PhD faculty in clinical departments now exceeds the number of PhD faculty in basic science departments. PhD faculty in clinical departments come from diverse research backgrounds, contribute substantially to the research intensity of their institutions, and are more likely than their counterparts in basic science departments to become involved in research involving human participants or human tissues. PhD faculty in clinical departments are less likely than their counterparts in basic science departments, but are as likely as physicians in clinical departments, to be rewarded with academic promotion. They are less likely than their physician colleagues to be promoted in research-intensive departments such as departments of medicine and at top 20 research-intensive schools. CONCLUSIONS: The burgeoning career opportunities for PhD faculty in clinical departments should be reflected in the course work, mentorship, and potential thesis topics of PhD training programs. In lieu of tenure, research-intensive medical schools should develop alternative career tracks providing somewhat greater job stability for these faculty.     

The publication of sponsored symposiums in medical journals.

BACKGROUND. An increasing proportion of spending by the pharmaceutical industry has gone to funding symposiums that are published by peer-reviewed medical journals. This study tests the hypothesis that such sponsorship, particularly by a single pharmaceutical company, is associated with a promotional orientation of the symposium and a distortion of the peer-review process. METHODS. We counted the symposiums published in 58 journals of clinical medicine and surveyed the journal editors regarding their policies for symposium issues. We analyzed the symposium issues that appeared in the 11 journals that published the most symposiums in order to determine the sponsor or sponsors, the topics, whether the titles were misleading, whether brand names were used, and whether the featured drugs were classified by the Food and Drug Administration as innovative or approved. RESULTS. The number of symposiums published per year increased steadily from 1966 through 1989. Forty-two percent of those analyzed (262 of 625) had a single pharmaceutical company as the sponsor. These symposiums were more likely than those with other sponsors to have misleading titles (P less than 0.001) and to use brand names (P less than 0.001), and less likely to be peer-reviewed in the same manner as other articles in the parent journal (P less than 0.001). Of the 161 symposiums that focused on a single drug, 51 percent concerned unapproved therapies; 14 percent concerned drugs classified as bringing important therapeutic gains. CONCLUSIONS: Symposiums sponsored by drug companies often have promotional attributes and are not peer-reviewed. Financial relations among symposium participants, sponsors, and journals should be completely disclosed, symposiums should be clearly identified, and journal editors should maintain editorial control over contributions from symposiums.     

Obstacles to promotion? Values of women faculty about career success and recognition. Committee on the Status of Women and Minorities, Virginia Commonwealth University, Medical College of Virginia Campus.

PURPOSE: To assess attitudes of female faculty about career progress, resources for career development, and values related to academic success and recognition. METHOD: In 1997, the authors surveyed all faculty at Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine and its associated Veterans Affairs Medical Center. RESULTS: Of 918 faculty, 567 (62%) responded to the survey; 33% of the respondents were women. Compared with men, women faculty were less likely to be tenured or at the level of professor, spent more time in clinical activities, had less time for scholarly activity, and reported slower career progress. Women were more likely to report that promotion and tenure criteria had not been reviewed with them. Significant differences were found between female physicians and non-physician faculty; female physicians reported the least time for scholarly activities and poorest understanding of promotion and tenure criteria. When the authors asked faculty how they valued certain indicators of career success, women were less likely to value leadership than were men. Female physicians were less likely to value scholarship and national recognition as indicators of their career success. CONCLUSION: This survey found important differences in career progress of male and female faculty, with women reporting less time for career development. In addition, there were differences in values related to career success and recognition, which were most pronounced for female physicians. These differences may have an important impact on promotion for women in general and particularly for female physicians.     

Scholarly Productivity of Athletic Training Faculty Members

OBJECTIVE: To compare the scholarly productivity index (SPI) among the levels of academic appointment, degree type, and percentage of academic appointment of athletic training faculty members. DESIGN AND SETTING: We used a 5 x 6 x 4 factorial design for this study. A survey instrument was used to determine the number of publications and the number of years in their current appointment. SUBJECTS: Subjects were faculty members in Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs-accredited athletic training education programs. MEASUREMENTS: The SPI was calculated by dividing the total number of publications (peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed journal articles, peer-reviewed abstracts, books written or edited, book chapters, platform presentations, published book reviews, and external funding) by the number of years in the productivity period. RESULTS: The SPIs were different for the levels of academic rank. Full professors had a higher SPI than all other groups (Tukey honestly significant difference, P 相似文献   

The impact of a program for systematically recognizing and rewarding academic performance.

PURPOSE: To describe an academic performance incentive system (APIS) and faculty perception of it; explore the impacts of incentive level, faculty rank, clinical practice volume, and administrative responsibility on academic productivity; and describe the APIS's use in maintaining congruence between department mission and activities. METHOD: A list of teaching, research, and academic service activities was developed, which full-time faculty (n = 33) used to report activities. Clinical faculty members received incentive income based on credits earned. APIS initially distributed 1% of practice plan receipts (subsequently increased to 3% and then 5%). Productivity was measured by differences in APIS points achieved. Satisfaction of all faculty participants was measured by survey. RESULTS: Faculty members (n = 20) who participated throughout averaged 22 credits per month (nine to 42 credits), and quarterly incentive bonuses ranged from 145 US dollars to 6,128 US dollars. Average credits earned per month were 24 for the 1% incentive, 23 for the 3% incentive, and 20 for the 5% incentive. Faculty members with administrative responsibilities were as productive academically as were their non-administrative counterparts. Senior faculty members were as productive as junior faculty. Faculty members who were more productive clinically were more productive academically. Seventy percent of respondents reported they were either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the APIS. Seventy-eight percent felt that the APIS accurately reflected their academic productivity. Most respondents (81%) felt that the amount of money allocated to the incentive system was appropriate (15% felt it should be increased and one respondent recommended reduction). CONCLUSIONS: The APIS system has been well accepted by faculty and allows for data-driven discussion of the department's mission and activities.     

Gender differences in academic advancement: patterns, causes, and potential solutions in one US College of Medicine.

PURPOSE: The influx of women into academic medicine has not been accompanied by equality for male and female faculty. Women earn less than men in comparable positions, progress more slowly through academic ranks, and have not attained important leadership roles. This study tested hypotheses about why gender disparities exist in salary, rank, track, leadership, and perceptions of campus climate at one academic center, the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson. METHOD: Salary, rank, and track data were obtained from institutional databases for the 1999-2000 fiscal year. A structured, online questionnaire was made available to 418 faculty members to collect information about their goals, attitudes, and experiences. RESULTS: A total of 198 faculty members completed the questionnaire. The data showed significant gender differences in faculty salaries, ranks, tracks, leadership positions, resources, and perceptions of academic climate. On average, women earned US dollars 12777 or 11% less than men, after adjusting for rank, track, degree, specialty, years in rank, and administrative positions (p <.0003). Of female faculty, 62% were assistant professors (49% of women were non-tenure-eligible assistant professors), while 55% of male faculty were promoted and tenured. Almost a third of women reported being discriminated against, compared with only 5% of men (p <.00001). CONCLUSION: Substantial gender differences in the rewards and opportunities of academic medicine remain, that can not be attributed to differences in productivity or commitment between women and men.     

Promoting research in medical education at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine.

Over the past seven years, educational innovations and scholarship have flourished at the University of California, San Francisco, (UCSF) School of Medicine. Prior to 1998, there was no infrastructure to support educational research and yet a few faculty members published in medical education journals and were active in national professional associations. With the initiation of curriculum reform in 1998, a great deal of excitement about education was generated and innovative new educational programs were envisioned. These changes became opportunities for educational scholarship. With the development of an Office of Medical Education in 1997 and the Haile T. Debas Academy of Medical Educators in 2001, the infrastructure was in place to expand educational research and the scholarship of teaching. The components of this support include educational leadership, faculty development, the Teaching Scholars Program, the Office of Educational Research and Development, the Academy, a Fellowship in Medical Education Research, collaborative research, and extramural grants. As a result of these investments, the number of UCSF faculty members who are involved in educational research has increased significantly. There has been a four-fold increase in peer-reviewed articles published in medical education journals and a greater increase in the publication of educational abstracts, editorials, chapters, and books, plus presentations at U.S. professional association meetings. In this article, the authors describe the changes that have occurred at UCSF to achieve these results.     

Women in medical education. A status report

Women now make up 37 percent of medical school applicants, 34 percent of medical students, 28 percent of residents, and 19 percent of full-time medical school faculty members. These proportions have grown from 26, 25, 19, and 15 percent, respectively, 10 years ago. A comparison of the academic performance of male and female medical students reveals few differences, particularly on standardized measures. However, women trainees experience more stress than men. Traditional differences in the choice of specialty by men and women are not diminishing. Women's accession to senior faculty positions has not kept pace with their increasing representation on the faculty--a cause of continuing concern. The percentage of female faculty members who are professors has changed from 8 to 9 percent in 10 years (as compared with 32 percent of male faculty members in 1988). I conclude that the numbers of women are increasing rapidly at the lower levels of medical education, but not at the upper levels.