Rates of Internal Hiring of Ophthalmology Faculty from their Institution of Training at Top Academic Medical Centers: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background  Throughout graduate and postgraduate education, trainees need to gauge the impact of training location on future institutions of practice. Objective  We assessed rates of internal hiring of ophthalmology faculty at academic institutions from their same institution of training. Methods  This was a cross-sectional study. We included 1,246 clinical ophthalmology faculty at the 13 top-ranked institutions listed in the 2021 U.S. News and World Report. Primary, emeritus, adjunct, and affiliate faculty were included. Publicly available information was collected from institutional websites and other online sources. Statistical analyses were conducted using t -tests or Mann-Whitney tests, chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests, and multivariate logistic regression. The main outcome measured was internal hires, defined as faculty who had completed residency and/or fellowship training at their current institution. Results  In total, 47.3% of faculty were internal hires who completed residency or fellowship at the same institution. Among externally trained faculty, 27.7% completed residency and 56.0% completed fellowship at another top 13 programs. Internal hires were more frequently fellowship-trained, had a greater number of publications, and practiced in smaller departments ( p  < 0.001, p  < 0.001, and p  = 0.002, respectively). A greater proportion of internal hires held leadership positions ( p  = 0.012). Faculty practicing in the Midwest or West and with more years since residency graduation were less likely (odds ratio [OR], 0.29, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18-0.48; OR, 0.49, 95% CI, 0.31-0.78; OR, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.97-0.99, respectively) to be internal hires. Faculty with non-R01 National Institutes of Health funding were more likely to be internal hires (OR, 1.82, 95% CI: 1.12-2.96). Conclusions  Training institution is key to determining the institution of practice. These results may be beneficial for trainees to consider when selecting a training program.

Socioeconomic Factors Influence Health Information Seeking and Trust Over Time: Evidence From a Cross-Sectional, Pooled Analyses of HINTS Data

PURPOSE

Assessed socioeconomic factors in health information seeking behavior and trust of information sources from 2007 to 2017.

DESIGN

Pooled cross-sectional survey data.

SETTING

Health Information National Trends Survey.

PARTICIPATION

Data included 6 iterations of U.S. adults (Pooled: N = 19,496; 2007: N = 3,593; 2011: N = 3,959; 2013: N = 3,185; FDA 2015: N = 3,738; 2017: N = 3,285; and FDA 2017: N = 1,736).

MEASURES

Outcome variables were health information seeking, high confidence, and high trust of health information from several sources. Independent variables were education and income group, controlling for other sociodemographic variables.

ANALYSIS

Weighted descriptive and multivariate logistic regression for the pooled sample assessed associations by education and income. Fully interacted models with education/income-survey year interactions compared differences in outcomes between years.

RESULTS

We found information seeking, confidence, and trust were associated with income and education, which supported previously reported findings. Additionally, our findings indicated low-and medium-income groups had significantly lower odds of seeking health information compared to those in a high-income group. Regarding trust of information, a high school education was associated with higher odds of trust in family and friends. We also found that, over time, information seeking, confidence, and trust behavior differed by income and education, with some differences persisting.

CONCLUSION

Disparities by income and education in trust of information sources remained across time. Understanding optimal information sources, their reach, and their credibility among groups could enable more targeted interventions and health messaging. We also describe the implications for our findings in the context of COVID-19.