Scholarly Productivity and Impact: Developing a Quantifiable, Norm-based Benchmarking Methodology for Academic Emergency Medicine

What factors are associated with the research productivity of primary care researchers in Canada? A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Research evidence to inform primary care policy and practice is essential for building high-performing primary care systems. Nevertheless, research output relating to primary care remains low worldwide. This study describes the factors associated with the research productivity of primary care researchers.

METHODS

A qualitative, descriptive key informant study approach was used to conduct semi-structured interviews with twenty-three primary care researchers across Canada. Qualitative data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-three primary care researchers participated in the study. An interplay of personal (psychological characteristics, gender, race, parenthood, education, spousal occupation, and support), professional (mentorship before appointment, national collaborations, type of research, career length), institutional (leadership, culture, resources, protected time, mentorship, type), and system (funding, systematic bias, environment, international collaborations, research data infrastructure) factors were perceived to be associated with research productivity. Research institutes and mentors facilitated collaborations, and mentors and type of research enabled funding success. Jurisdictions with fewer primary care researchers had more national collaborations but fewer funding opportunities. The combination of institutional, professional, and system factors were barriers to the research productivity of female and/or racialized researchers.

CONCLUSIONS

This study illuminates the intersecting and multifaceted influences on the research productivity of primary care researchers. By exploring individual, professional, institutional, and systemic factors, we underscore the pivotal role of diverse elements in shaping RP. Understanding these intricate influencers is imperative for tailored, evidence-based interventions and policies at the level of academic institutions and funding agencies to optimize resources, promote fair evaluation metrics, and cultivate inclusive environments conducive to diverse research pursuits within the PC discipline in Canada.

Scholarly Activity of Tenure-Track Faculty in US Departments of Pharmacy Practice

Objective. To quantitatively determine scholarly activity among tenure-track faculty at US departments of pharmacy practice over a 10-year period.Methods. A search of PubMed was performed for articles by department of pharmacy practice tenure track (DPP-TT) faculty from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2019. DPP-TT faculty working in departments of pharmacy practice were identified through faculty rosters published on the American Association Colleges of Pharmacy website or college or school internet sites. Tenure-track faculty listed as working in a department of pharmacy practice, clinical pharmacy, or pharmacotherapy were included. An objective third party confirmed the data obtained. Each publication was classified by scope (eg, clinical pharmacology, health economics/outcome research, biomedical informatics, basic science, review, editorial/letter, or case report). DPP-TT faculty productivity was calculated by dataset frequency distribution. Descriptive statistics and analysis of variance were used to compare data across demographic strata.Results. One hundred thirty-seven institutions employed 2147 pharmacy practice faculty. These faculty published 20,059 (9.3±16.3/10 years/faculty member) papers. Six institutions had no tenure-track designation. There was a 2.5-fold increase in publication rates from 2010-2019 (P < 0001). Public vs private schools' productivity was 207.8 vs 69.0 publications per institution, respectively (P < 001). The ratio of male to female DPP-TT faculty per institution was 62% to 38%, with male faculty publishing an average of 12.1±19.1 each, and female faculty publishing an average of 7.4±13.8 each (P < 0001). Faculty ranks were 37% assistant professor; 36% associate professor; and 26% professor, with an average of 4.0±7.3, 8.6±12.4, and 17.4±24.6 publications per faculty, respectively. Regionally, US pharmacy practice faculty located in the West produced the most publications, followed by those in the Northeast, South, and Midwest (P < 0001).Conclusions. These national DPP-TT publication data demonstrate that scholarly productivity increased from 2010 through 2019, across a wide variety of publication scopes.

Promotion and tenure letters: A guide for faculty

Promotion and tenure (P&T) letters are a key component of the academic advancement portfolio. Despite their importance, many faculty are not trained to write these letters and there is limited literature describing the approach and key components. This paper reviews the role of P&T letters and provides general guidelines for writers. We present a step-by-step guide, which includes how to respond to requests, the role of institutional guidelines, providing context to the letter, evaluating candidates, and delivering an overall recommendation. Finally, we discuss current controversies in P&T letters. This paper is intended to help novice and more experienced writers to enhance their P&T letters, while also helping applicants for promotion understand what is being asked of their letter writers.

Relationship Between Research Culture and Research Activity of Medical Doctors: A Survey and Audit

PURPOSE

To describe the research capacity and culture, and research activity (publications and new projects) of medical doctors across a health service and determine if the research activity of specialty groups correlated with their self-reported "team" level research capacity and culture.

METHODS

Cross-sectional, observational survey and audit of medical doctors at a tertiary health service in Queensland. The Research Capacity and Culture (RCC) validated survey was used to measure self-reported research capacity/culture at organisation, team and individual levels, and presence of barriers and facilitators to research. An audit of publications and ethically approved research projects was used to determine research activity.

RESULTS

Approximately, 10% of medical doctors completed the survey (n= 124). Overall, median scores on the RCC were 5 out of 10 for organisational level, 5.5 for specialty level, and 6 for individual level capacity and culture; however, specialty-level scores varied significantly between specialty groups (range 3.1-7.8). Over 80% of participants reported lack of time and other work roles taking priority as barriers to research. One project was commenced per year for every 12.5 doctors employed in the health service, and one article was published for every 7.5. There was a positive association between a team's number of publications and projects and their self-reported research capacity and culture on the RCC. This association was stronger for publications.

CONCLUSION

Health service research capacity building interventions may need a tailored approach for different specialty teams to accommodate for varying baselines of capacity and activity. When evaluating these initiatives, a combination of research activity and subjective self-report measures may be complementary.

Outcome assessment of medical education fellowships in emergency medicine

OBJECTIVES

Medical education fellowships in emergency medicine (EM) provide training in teaching, assessment, educational program administration, and scholarship. The longitudinal impact of this training is unknown. Our objective was to characterize the career outcomes of medical education fellowship graduates.

METHODS

We solicited curriculum vitae (CV) from graduates of U.S. EM education fellowships by email. We abstracted data from CVs with a standard instrument that included program characteristics, employment history, leadership positions, awards, and scholarly productivity. We calculated and reported descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 71 of 91 (78%) graduates participated. Thirty-three completed a 1-year fellowship and 38 completed a 2-year fellowship. Nineteen (27%) completed an advanced degree during fellowship. Median (range) graduation year was 2016 (1997-2020). The majority, 63 of 71 (89%), work in an academic setting. Graduates held leadership positions in continuing medical education, graduate medical education, and undergraduate medical education. Forty-eight (68%) served on national medical education committees. The mean ± SD number of national medical education awards was 1.27 ± 2.03. The mean ± SD number of national medical education presentations was 7.63 ± 10.83. Graduates authored a mean ± SD of 3.63 ± 5.81 book chapters and a mean ± SD of 4.99 ± 6.17 peer-reviewed medical education research publications. Ten (14%) served on journal editorial boards, 34 (48%) were journal reviewers, and 31 (44%) had received a medical education grant.

CONCLUSION

EM medical education fellowship graduates are academically productive and hold education leadership positions.

A cross-sectional analysis of self-reported scholarly publications among United States pharmacy practice faculty

INTRODUCTION

The objectives of this study were to provide an estimate of self-reported peer-reviewed publications and evaluate characteristics associated with publication rates among pharmacy practice faculty within United States (US)-based colleges and schools of pharmacy.

METHODS

An online survey instrument was distributed to pharmacy practice faculty via email listserv. Information regarding faculty members' publication histories, faculty position, institutional characteristics, and faculty demographic characteristics was gathered. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize participants, and t-tests and analysis of variance were used for comparisons among groups.

RESULTS

Two hundred and nine pharmacy practice faculty were included. The majority were female (67%), white (81%), and from public institutions (66%). Academic ranks were well-represented. Reporting higher percent time spent in research, employment at public institutions, and having earned a doctor of philosophy (PhD) degree were all significantly associated with higher total number of publications and a higher annualized publication rate. Tenure track faculty who were not yet tenured had higher annual publication rates than faculty who were tenured or in non-tenure track positions. The overall annual publication rate was 2.0 ± 2.1 publications per year.

CONCLUSIONS

Characteristics such as being in a tenure track position, holding a PhD, spending more time in research, and employment within a public institution were all associated with a higher publication rate. These self-reported data from pharmacy practice faculty also indicate an increase in the average number of scholarly publications per year from previously reported estimates.

Scholarly productivity of faculty in primary care roles related to tenure versus non-tenure tracks

BACKGROUND

Increasing the number of primary care physicians is critical to overcoming the shortage of healthcare providers. Primary care physicians are increasingly called upon to address not only medical concerns but also behavioral health needs and social determinants of health which requires ongoing research and innovation. This paper evaluated scholarly productivity of faculty in tenure versus non-tenure tracks in primary care roles, defined as family medicine, internal medicine, internal medicine/pediatrics and pediatrics.

METHODS

The study included physician faculty in the clinical departments of Brody School of Medicine serving between the 2014-2015 and 2018-2019 academic years. Department, track, and rank at the beginning of each academic year (e.g., 2014-2015) were correlated with having any publications in the following calendar year (e.g., 2015), as determined from a search of the Scopus database.

RESULTS

A total of 1620 observations and 542 unique faculty were included in the analysis. As of 2018-2019, 19% percent of primary care faculty were either tenured or on tenure track, as compared to 41% of faculty in other departments (p < 0.001). Primary care departments were also disproportionately staffed by junior faculty (60% as compared to 48% in other departments; p = 0.087). The proportion of faculty with any publications was significantly higher for faculty on the tenure track compared to those not on the tenure track (34% vs. 14%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Academic productivity was lower among non-tenure-track physician faculty, as measured by publication in peer-reviewed journals. This was exacerbated among faculty in primary care departments, who were also more likely to hold non-tenure-track appointments. The loss of tenure-track positions disproportionately impacts scholarly activity in primary care and may be limiting progress in care-oriented research. Findings suggest that providing non-tenure faculty the time and resources to be involved in research, in addition to their clinical work, as well as access to research collaborators and mentors can promote scholarly activity among this group.

Research Impact Core: A Research Impact Initiative at the University of Michigan

Informationists at the Taubman Health Sciences Library, University of Michigan, formed a research impact consultation and education initiative in early 2017 to increase engagement with the health sciences community around the informed, responsible use of a range of citation and alternative metrics and associated tools. So far, the Research Impact Core has primarily entailed developing training content and cultivating partnerships related to publication metrics and associated best practices. This article reports on progress from the first two years of the Research Impact Core, including a snapshot of information session registrants, and a broader discussion of collaborative partnerships around research impact in the health sciences and library system.