Eligible Faculty Research Articles

Exploring the perceptions of faculty members about research courses in undergraduate pharmacy curriculum: A qualitative study.

The commitment of pharmacy graduates to patient care and research is crucial to advancing pharmaceutical science and practice. Consequently, the value of involving undergraduate pharmacy students in research has been increasingly recognized. Given that the College of Pharmacy at Qatar University offers two undergraduate pharmacy research courses, it is relevant to explore the perception of faculty members of the delivery, impact, facilitators, barriers, and suggested improvements in these courses. This exploration will help to improve the existing curriculum and to highlight the prospective impact of student involvement in undergraduate pharmacy research courses on the personal and professional growth of students, as well as on the progressive evolution of the pharmacy profession. A qualitative exploratory case study was performed in which five virtual focus groups were conducted. All eligible faculty members from the clinical pharmacy and pharmaceutical science departments with experience supervising students who had taken one or two undergraduate pharmacy research courses were invited to participate. The focus group questions were based on the Theoretical domain framework of behavioral determinants. Verbatim transcription was performed, and the collected data were thematically analyzed using the computer-assisted coding software NVivo®. Of the 26 eligible faculty members, 21 participated in this study. Five deductive themes were identified: social professional role and influences, beliefs about capabilities, skills, beliefs about consequences and goals, and environmental resources and behavioral regulations. Overall, faculty members identified themselves as assessors and mentors. Participants expected students to possess independence, responsibility, and motivation. They believed that students generally required more practical research skills. Several benefits of incorporating students into undergraduate research have been highlighted, including increased publication productivity and quality. However, several hurdles to undergraduate research in pharmacy have been identified, including limited resources, limited timeframes, and sometimes delayed ethical approval. Faculty members expressed optimism regarding the undergraduate research courses. However, some logistical concerns, including the lengthy ethical approval process and resource availability, must be addressed to optimize the effectiveness of these courses.

Committed to Success: A Structured Mentoring Program for Clinically Oriented Physicians

ObjectiveTo examine impacts of a structured mentorship committee program on academic promotion and participant perceptions because impacts of formal mentorship programs for clinical faculty are unknown. Participants and MethodsThis prospective cohort study at a Midwestern Veterans Affairs tertiary care system from December 17, 2019 to December 31, 2022 included clinical track faculty in the Medicine Service below the rank of Clinical Associate Professor. Mentoring meetings (mentee, committee chair, and mentors) were generally held twice annually. All participants were surveyed after each meeting (response rate: 100%). ResultsAll 23 of 23 (100%) eligible faculty were enrolled as mentees, and 49 distinct meetings occurred. Three (13%) mentees were promoted, and the remaining 20 (87%) continued in the program. Mean scores (SD), scaled 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), for mentors and mentees were 4.71 (0.51) and 4.80 (0.54) for “effective use of my time”; 4.58 (0.64) and 4.37 (0.49) for “appropriate progress since last meeting”; 4.52 (0.66) and 4.31 (0.64) for “program increased my work satisfaction”; and 4.07 (0.96) and 3.75 (0.92) for “program reduced my work burnout,” respectively. ConclusionClinically oriented physicians viewed the program positively. It appeared to help junior faculty get promoted and led to improved work satisfaction and reduced burnout.

Group peer mentoring to improve faculty connections and enhance mentoring networks.

Difficulty finding mentors and forging connections in academic departments can be challenging and became even more so when the COVID-19 pandemic reduced opportunities for informal networking. Even as restrictions on in-person meetings eased, many faculty preferred meetings to remain virtual. Because some of the most powerful predictors of faculty vitality are positive professional relationships and feelings of inclusion and belonging to an institution, attending to faculty needs in this area is important to mitigate undesired lingering consequences. We created structured peer mentoring groups for our department's physicians and psychologists that meet virtually. Groups span career stages, academic appointments and clinical interests. The purpose was to establish a deeper culture of mentoring, increase feelings of connection to a supportive community within the department, facilitate career planning and enhance the development of skills necessary in academic medicine such as teaching skills, scholarly productivity and personal wellness. A survey conducted after the first year of the programme was completed by 70% of eligible faculty (31/45). Ninety-six percent felt the programme had created an inclusive and appreciative culture, 86% met faculty members they had never met before and 79% sought mentoring advice from a colleague they would not usually have interacted with in that manner. All participants appreciated hearing their colleagues' perspectives on topics they do not typically discuss. Departmentally based group peer mentoring that spans career stages and interests can facilitate faculty connections and enhance a supportive culture of mentorship.

A novel hospitalist peer observation program to improve educational and operational rounding practices.

Academic hospitalists must balance trainee education with operational demands to round efficiently and optimize hospital throughput. Peer observation has been shown to support educator development, however, few hospitalists have formal training to optimize both skill sets. We sought to extend and adapt peer observation programs to equally focus on education and operations-based outcomes. During the 2-year study period, 76 of 98 (78%) eligible faculty participated in a structured, real-time peer observation program. Immediately after observing a peer, 42% of respondents planned to adopt an operations-related rounding behavior. Following program completion, 77% of respondents endorsed the implementation of a new rounding behavior learned from a peer, with a third of these behaviors related to clinical operations. Ninety-five percent of respondents endorsed at least a moderate degree of program satisfaction. High levels of engagement and sustained behavior change following program participation suggest clinical operations are an important addition to peer observation programs and faculty development initiatives.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Medical Grand Rounds Attendance: Comparison of In-Person and Remote Conferences.

Many academic medical centers transitioned from in-person to remote conferences due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but the impact on faculty attendance is unknown. This study aims to evaluate changes in attendance at medical grand rounds (MGR) following the transition from an in-person to remote format and as a function of the COVID-19 census at Vanderbilt Medical Center. We obtained the faculty attendee characteristics from Department of Medicine records. Attendance was recorded using a SMS text message-based system. The daily COVID-19 census was recorded independently by hospital administration. The main attendance metric was the proportion of eligible faculty that attended each MGR. Comparisons were made for the entire cohort and for individual faculty. The observation period was from March 2019 to June 2021 and included 101 MGR conferences with more than 600 eligible faculty. Overall attendance was unchanged during the in-person and remote formats (12,536/25,808, 48.6% vs 16,727/32,680, 51.2%; P=.44) and did not change significantly during a surge in the COVID-19 census. Individual faculty members attendance rates varied widely. Absolute differences between formats were less than -20% or greater than 20% for one-third (160/476, 33.6%) of faculty. Pulmonary or critical care faculty attendance increased during the remote format compared to in person (1450/2616, 55.4% vs 1004/2045, 49.1%; P<.001). A cloud-based digital archive of MGR lectures was accessed by <1% of faculty per conference. Overall faculty attendance at MGR did not change following the transition to a remote format, regardless of the COVID-19 census, but individual attendance habits fluctuated in a bidirectional manner. Incentivizing the use of a digital archive may represent an opportunity to increase faculty consumption of MGR.

Enhancing Faculty Development Through Compiled Verbal Feedback on Clinical Teaching From Trainees.

Feedback from fellows-in-training (FITs) is important for faculty development and to enrich clinical teaching. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of traditional online evaluations and a novel compiled verbal feedback mechanism. An annual feedback system was implemented in our rheumatology division in which FITs provided verbal feedback on all faculty to a facilitator who compiled, deidentified, and shared the feedback with individual faculty members. FITs also completed standard online annual evaluations of faculty. FITs and faculty completed surveys assessing the perceived effectiveness and confidentiality of each feedback mechanism. Thirteen of 15 eligible faculty and all 4 eligible FITs completed both surveys. Responses by FITs and faculty regarding the quality of online evaluations were generally unfavorable or neutral. Faculty responses regarding compiled verbal feedback were more favorable in all questions and significantly more favorable with respect to the feedback's ability to explain strengths (54% favorable for online evaluations vs 100% for compiled verbal feedback), the feedback's specificity (0% vs 54%), and the feedback's actionable nature (15% vs 62%). All FITs' responses regarding quality of compiled verbal feedback were favorable. FITs had concerns regarding confidentiality with both online evaluations (0% favorable) and compiled verbal feedback (25% favorable), though FITs had less concern for future faculty interactions with compiled verbal feedback (100% favorable) than with online evaluations (0% favorable). Compiled verbal feedback by FITs produced more actionable and effective feedback for faculty, with less concerns regarding future faculty interactions compared with traditional online evaluations. Further study of this method across different programs and institutions is warranted.

The Relative Citation Ratio: Evaluating a New Measure of Scientific Influence Among Academic Sports Medicine Surgeons.

Objective measures of research influence are being increasingly utilized to evaluate and compare academic faculty. However, traditional bibliometrics, such as the Hirsch index and article citation count, are biased by time-dependent factors and are limited by a lack of field normalization. The relative citation ratio (RCR) is a new field- and time-normalized article-level metric developed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the RCR among fellowship-trained academic sports medicine surgeons and to analyze physician factors associated with RCR values. We hypothesized that the mean RCR score for fellowship-trained academic sports medicine surgery faculty will fall above the NIH standard. Cross-sectional study. A retrospective data analysis was performed using the iCite database for all fellowship-trained sports medicine surgery faculty associated with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited orthopaedic surgery residency programs in December 2021. In eligible faculty, the mean RCR, weighted RCR, and total publication count were compared by sex, career duration, academic rank, and presence of additional degrees. A mean RCR value of 1.0 is the NIH-funded field-normalized standard. The data herein are presented as the median and interquartile range, in addition to the mean and standard deviation, to account for outliers of the mean and weighted RCR scores. A total of 624 fellowship-trained sports medicine surgery faculty members from 160 orthopaedic surgery residency programs were included in the analysis. Overall, faculty produced impactful research, with a median RCR of 1.6 (interquartile range, 1.0-2.2) and a median weighted RCR of 19.3 (interquartile range, 5.1-69.3). Advanced academic rank and career longevity were associated with increased weighted RCR and total publication count. All subgroups analyzed had an RCR value >1.0. Study findings indicate that fellowship-trained academic sports medicine surgery faculty are highly productive and produce impactful research, as evidenced by the high median RCR value relative to the benchmark NIH RCR value of 1.0.

Is Academic Medicine Prepared to Teach About the Intersection of Childhood Experiences and Health? An Exploratory Survey of Faculty.

Childhood experiences affect health across the lifespan. Evidence-based strategies targeting early-life stress are emerging. Nevertheless, faculty physicians' preparation to incorporate this science into practice has not been well studied. This study explores medical faculty knowledge and beliefs, timing and route of knowledge acquisition, perceived relevance and application of study topics, and characteristics associated with concept mastery. The authors developed and administered an exploratory survey to faculty from six departments at two medical schools. The team analyzed responses using quantitative and qualitative methods. Eighty-one (8.8%) eligible faculty completed the survey. Of respondents, 53 (65.4%) achieved high knowledge, 34 (42.0%) high beliefs, and 42 (59.1%) high concept exposure question scores, but only 6 (7.4%) through a formal route. Although 78 (96.8%) respondents indicated that survey concepts are relevant, only 18 (22.2%) reported fully incorporating them in their work, and 48 (59.2%) identified the need for additional coaching. Respondents reporting full incorporation were significantly more likely to attain high concept exposure scores (17 respondents, 94.4%, versus 25 respondents, 39.7%, P < .001). Quantitative and qualitative analysis highlighted limited respondent awareness of trauma prevalence among health care workers, lack of familiarity with interventions, and time and resource challenges addressing childhood adversity. Although survey respondents had some familiarity with study concepts and perceived their relevance, most are not fully applying them. Results suggest that exposure to study concepts is associated with full incorporation. Therefore, intentional faculty development is essential to prepare faculty to include this science in practice.

The Relationship of Mentorship to Career Outcomes in Academic Psychiatry and Psychology: a Needs Assessment.

Faculty development is designed to facilitate career advancement of junior faculty but there is limited empirical evidence on how to design an effective program. As a first step in the design of an effective program, a needs assessment was conducted. Participants were faculty members of an academic psychiatry department. Participants completed a quantitative and qualitative survey assessing their experience with mentors, academic self-efficacy, career burnout and satisfaction, academic productivity, and perceived barriers to scholarship. Eighty percent (N = 104) of eligible faculty members completed the study survey (54% female; 81% White, 10% underrepresented in medicine). Less than half of the respondents (44%) reported having a current mentor. Number of mentors (r = .33; p < .01), mentorship meetings (r = .35; p < .01), and mentorship quality (r = .33; p < .01) were significantly correlated to a standardized measure of academic self-efficacy. Self-efficacy was significantly associated with academic productivity (r = .44; p < .001) and career satisfaction (r = .29; p < .05). The top barriers to scholarship productivity were time and lack of access to resources. Faculty members without a mentor endorsed more barriers to scholarship (p < .001) than those with a mentor. Themes that emerged from the qualitative data suggest that mentorship supports career advancement through coaching and professional development, invitations to collaborate and resource share, networking, and active teaching. Based on the relationship of mentoring to career outcomes, a robust faculty development program needs a formal academic mentorship program to improve career satisfaction and academic productivity.

Faculty perspectives on facilitating medical students' longitudinal learning: A mixed-methods study.

Medical students' longitudinal care of patients supports clinical learning and promotes patient-centredness. The literature presents little empirically derived guidance for faculty to facilitate students' longitudinal learning and care. Informed by the conceptual framework of relational learning, this study investigated faculty perspectives about longitudinal teaching, their strategies for facilitating students' longitudinal learning and perceived barriers and enablers. Using a convergent mixed-methods approach at a single academic medical centre, the authors conducted a survey and two focus groups in 2018-2019 with faculty members teaching in three longitudinal clinical courses. Quantitative analyses included descriptive statistics and chi-square tests. Qualitative content analysis described deductive categories and identified inductive themes. Forty-three eligible faculty (69%) completed the survey. Ninety-one percent (n = 39) reported that teaching in a longitudinal model enhanced their experience as preceptors. Faculty described activities students performed to provide longitudinal care: spending time with patients independently (n = 38, 88%), making follow-up phone calls (n = 35; 81%) and participating in home- and community-based visits (n = 20, 47%), among others. Twelve faculty participated in two focus groups. Deductive analysis characterised strategies for facilitating students' longitudinal learning and barriers and enablers. Strategies included "encouraging students to follow patients," "faculty adaptability," "offering guidance and setting expectations," and "careful patient selection." Barriers included scheduling limitations, and enablers included student initiative. Inductive analysis identified two themes: faculty goals for students and faculty benefits from teaching. Goals included meaningful engagement with patients and their illness over time. Benefits from teaching included personal gratification, mentorship, and holistic student assessment. Our survey and focus group findings demonstrated positive faculty attitudes and experiences, characterised faculty goals and approaches, and identified elements of the educational context that hindered or facilitated longitudinal teaching and learning. This study's faculty perspectives build upon prior investigations of students' and patients' perspectives, offer teaching strategies, and may guide faculty development.

Impact of an Innovative Endowed Chair Program on Medical Educator Recipients.

Rarely do faculty members receive endowed chairs as recognition for their work as educators. In addition to the title, endowed chairholders have traditionally received discretionary income to pursue value-added work. This study assessed the impact on recipients of receiving an endowed chair for education. The authors conducted a qualitative thematic analysis between 2018 and 2020, interviewing University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine chairholders who had completed at least one 5-year term. Authors double-coded all transcripts, reconciled codes, applied social cognitive career theory during analysis, and identified themes through an iterative consensus-building approach. Twenty-three of 24 (96%) eligible faculty members from 16 departments participated. Themes identified were symbolism, resources, education and educator credibility, development, and impact. The chair was a symbol that brought recognition, indicated quality, and amplified visibility and status within the institution and externally. Receiving an endowed chair conferred credibility on recipients and empowered them in the educational domain. The resources allowed chairholders the flexibility to undertake activities that were of value to them, to mentees, and to the organization. Holding the chair facilitated professional development for self and others. Chair recipients reported impact that persisted long after their term(s) concluded. A model of impact emerged, suggesting that simply possessing the chair title led to visibility and gravitas, which, combined with resources, allowed the holder to leverage opportunities in education. The endowed chair is an important strategy for career development in education for the chairholder and enhances the position of education institutionally. Having a plan sharpens the focus on activities, results, and impact.

What Does It Mean to Be a Clinical Track Faculty Member in Public Health? A Survey of Clinical Track Faculty Across the United States.

The clinical professor track has expanded and reflects a trend toward hiring non-tenure-track faculty in public health; however, little is known about this track. We documented characteristics of clinical faculty at US schools of public health. We surveyed clinical faculty at Council on Education for Public Health-accredited schools of public health in the United States in 2019, identified via each school's website. We invited faculty (n = 264) who had the word clinical in their title (ie, apparently eligible faculty), had a working email address, and were not authors of this article to provide information about their rank, degree credentials, expectations for teaching, service, research and practice, and promotion criteria at their institution. In addition, we used open-ended responses to explain and contextualize quantitative data. Of 264 apparently eligible faculty surveyed, 88 (33.3%) responded. We included 81 eligible clinical faculty in our final sample, of whom 46 (56.8%) were assistant professors and 72 (88.9%) had a terminal degree; 57 of 80 (71.3%) had an initial contract of ≤2 years or no contract. Most clinical faculty listed service (96.2%), teaching (95.0%), and student advising/mentoring (86.3%) as duties; fewer clinical faculty reported research (55.0%), practice (33.8%), or clinic (7.5%) duties. Only 37.1% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that promotion policies for clinical track faculty were clear. If most clinical faculty are at the lowest academic rank, with short contracts and unclear expectations, it will be difficult for clinical faculty to advance and challenging for schools of public health to benefit from this track. Clear institutional expectations for scope of work and promotion may enhance the contribution of clinical faculty to schools of public health and help define this track.

Using objective clinical metrics to understand the relationship between the electronic health record and physician well-being: observational pilot study.

Electronic health records (EHRs) are a significant contributor to physicians' low satisfaction, reduced engagement and increased burnout. Yet the majority of evidence around EHR and physician harms is based on self-reported screen time, which may both over- and underreport actual exposure. The purpose of this study was to examine how objective EHR use correlates with physician well-being and to develop preliminary recommendations for well-being-based EHR interventions. Prior to the onset of COVID-19, psychiatry residents and attending physicians working in an out-patient clinic at an academic medical centre provided consent for access to EHR-usage logs and completed a well-being assessment made up of three scales: the Maslach Burnout Inventory, the Urecht Work Engagement Scale and the Professional Quality of Life Measure. Survey responses and objective EHR data were analysed with descriptive statistics. Responses were obtained from 20 psychiatry residents (total eligible residents n = 27; 74% participation) and 16 clinical faculty members (total eligible faculty n = 24; 67% participation) with an overall response rate of 71% (total eligible residents and faculty n = 51 and total residents and faculty who completed survey n = 36). Moderate correlations for multiple well-being domains emerged in analysis for all participants, especially around the time spent per note and patient visits closed the same day. EHR-usage logs represent an objective tool in the evaluation and enhancement of physician well-being. Results from our pilot study suggest that metrics for note writing efficiency and closing patient visits the same day are associated with physician well-being. These metrics will be important to study in ongoing efforts involving well-being-based EHR interventions.

Origin Storytelling in Faculty Well-being: A Pilot Study.

In 2020, approximately 47% of family physicians reported burnout. For physicians, professional burnout is implicated in damage to relationships, increased rates of alcohol and/or substance abuse, depression, and suicide. Professional isolation can be a major contributor to burnout. Organizational interventions targeted at promoting workplace community and collegiality have been effective in decreasing professional isolation. This study sought to decrease professional isolation and promote collegiality among family medicine faculty through an origin storytelling group. Family medicine faculty of a residency program in the Midwestern United States were invited to participate in an 8-week origin storytelling group. At the end of the study, individual interviews were offered for participants to reflect on the perceived impact of the process. Additionally, 1 year poststudy, open-ended email responses were invited to assess lasting effects of collegiality. Fifty percent (12/24) of eligible faculty members participated in the study. Participants who completed one-on-one structured interviews shared their perspectives of the study, which allowed for the importance of the study and next directions to be identified. One-year postcompletion of the study, participants described continued changes they experienced from these groups, via open-ended, email response. Storytelling groups can provide acceptable, valuable, and easily-implemented contributions to initiatives that enhance physician faculty well-being.

The impact of time spent on the electronic health record after work and of clerical work on burnout among clinical faculty.

To identify specific thresholds of daily electronic health record (EHR) time after work and daily clerical time burden associated with burnout in clinical faculty. We administered an institution-wide survey to faculty in all departments at Mount Sinai Health System from November 2018 to February 2019. The Maslach Burnout Inventory and Mayo Well-Being Index assessed burnout. Demographics, possible confounding variables, and time spent on EHR work/clerical burden were assessed. Of 4156 eligible faculty members, 1781(42.9%) participated in the survey. After adjustment for background factors, EHR frustration (odds ratio [OR]=1.64-1.66), spending >90 minutes on EHR-outside the workday by self-report (OR = 1.41-1.90) and >1 hour of self-reported clerical work/day (OR = 1.39) were associated with burnout. Reporting that one's practice unloads clerical burden (OR = 0.50-0.66) and higher resilience scores (OR = 0.77-0.84) were negatively associated with burnout.Spending >90 minutes/day on EHR-outside work (OR = 0.66-0.67) and >60 minutes/day on clerical work (OR = 0.54-0.58) was associated with decreased likelihood of satisfactory work-life integration (WLI) and professional satisfaction (PS). Greater meaning in work was associated with an increased. of achieving WLI (OR = 2.51) and PS (OR = 21.67). Results suggest there are thresholds of excessive time on the EHR-outside the workday (>90 minutes) and overall clerical tasks (>60 minutes), above which clinical faculty may be at increased risk for burnout, as well as reduced WLI and PS, independent of demographic characteristics and clinical work hours. These thresholds of EHR and clerical burden may inform interventions aimed at mitigating this burden to reduce physician burnout.

Peer Coaching as a Faculty Development Tool: A Mixed Methods Evaluation.

BackgroundIn the era of competency-based assessment, medical education faculty are frequently challenged to develop unique teaching approaches. One method to address faculty development needs in a real-time clinical learning environment is peer coaching.ObjectiveWe implemented and evaluated a faculty development program involving peer observation and feedback for attending physicians.MethodsHospital internal medicine faculty assigned to a teaching service were recruited for the study. Participants voluntarily agreed to observe and be observed by a peer attending physician during a 2-week block of teaching rounds. When serving in the coaching role, faculty were asked to observe 4 separate occasions using an observation tool based on the Stanford Faculty Development Program framework to guide feedback. An outside consultant facilitated a focus group and completed a qualitative content analysis to categorize all participants' experiences during the faculty development activity.ResultsOf the 22 eligible faculty, 14 (64%) agreed to participate by committing to 6 to 8 hours observing another faculty member during rounds, 2 feedback sessions, and 90 minutes to provide program feedback during a focus group. The analysis of the focus group revealed favorable reactions to the faculty development program, including (1) observed attending awareness of unrecognized habits; (2) personalized teaching tips for the observed attending to improve teaching quality based on individual style/preferences; and (3) exposure to new teaching techniques.ConclusionsAn inpatient-based peer-coaching faculty development program was acceptable and feasible for a majority of faculty and may improve individual teaching effectiveness among conventionally trained physicians.

Personal Manuscript Acceptance Rates: Metrics for Self-assessment in Scholarship.

There is no established baseline for how frequently clinical researchers personally encounter manuscript rejection, making it difficult for faculty to put their own evolving experience in context. The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of obtaining personal acceptance per submission (APS) and acceptance per manuscript (APM) rates for individual faculty members. We performed a cross-section survey pilot study of clinical faculty members of two departments (family medicine and pediatrics), in one academic health center in the academic year 2017-2018. The survey asked participants to report the number of attempted submissions required per journal article they have had accepted in the prior 2 years as well as any submissions that did not lead to publication. Sixty-eight of 136 eligible faculty (50%) completed the questionnaire. Academic clinicians in the sample eventually published 80% of the manuscripts submitted, with 39% of papers rejected per submission attempt. Associate professors had the highest APS (0.71) and APM (0.88). In this pilot, we demonstrated the feasibility of retrospectively collecting data that could identify baseline manuscript acceptance rates and were able to generate department averages and rank specific averages for manuscript acceptance and rejection. We confirmed that rejection is common among academic clinicians. The APS and APM can be used by academic clinicians to track their own progress from day one of their publishing careers as a method of self-assessment, rather than having to wait for citations to accumulate.

How to Foster Academic Promotion and Career Advancement of Women in Gastroenterology

How to Foster Academic Promotion and Career Advancement of Women in Gastroenterology

Differences in Physician Compensation Between Men and Women at United States Public Academic Radiation Oncology Departments

A pay gap between men and women has been identified in many medical specialties. However, radiation oncology has been excluded from most analyses. This study sought to determine whether such a disparity exists among physicians in US public academic radiation oncology departments. Radiation oncology physician faculty at US public academic medical schools were identified in states that report public university radiation oncology faculty salary. Information pertaining to sex, academic rank, experience, clinical volume, and academic productivity were collected. Simple (1 predictor) and multiple (more than 1 predictor) generalized linear mixed-effect models for compensation were used to simultaneously assess the impact of physician-level and institutional-level variables, while accounting for potential correlations within institutions. To minimize the impact of faculty members working less than a full-time equivalent, a Monte Carlo simulation-based sensitivity analysis was conducted, and faculty with reported salaries under $175,000 were excluded. A total of 247 eligible faculty (81 women, 166 men) with public salary data were identified at 22 US public academic radiation oncology departments in 14 states. Unadjusted mean salary was 12.6% ($48,974) lower for women ($341,173; 95% confidence interval [CI], $304,581-$382,162) than it was for men ($390,147; 95% CI, $353,693-$430,358; P<.01). A $26,458 gap (6.4%) in mean salary between men ($411,829; 95% CI, $367,282-$461,780) and women ($385,371; 95% CI, $342,388-$433,749) persisted on multivariable analysis after accounting for other factors (P<.01). The salary gap remained statistically significant on sensitivity analysis. Mean salary for women at US public academic radiation oncology departments was lower than mean salary for men, after adjusting for confounders. Our analysis was limited to public data and could not account for relevant private personal choices and departmental factors. The salary gap may differ in other practice environments. Further research is warranted to determine the cause of this disparity, whether it exists in other practice environments, and how to successfully address it.

Factors affecting engagement between academic faculty and decision-makers: learnings and priorities for a school of public health

BackgroundSchools of public health (SPHs) are increasingly being recognised as important contributors of human, social and intellectual capital relevant to health policy and decision-making. Few studies within the implementation science literature have systematically examined knowledge exchange experiences within this specific organisational context. The purpose of this study was therefore to elicit whether documented facilitators and barriers to engaging with government decision-makers resonates within an academic SPH context. We sought to understand the variations in such experiences at four different levels of government decision-making. Furthermore, we sought to elicit intervention priorities as identified by faculty.MethodsBetween May and December 2016, 211 (34%) of 627 eligible full-time faculty across one SPH in the United States of America participated in a survey on engagement with decision-makers at the city, state, federal and global government levels. Surveys were administered face-to-face or via Skype. Descriptive data as well as tests of association and logistic regression analyses were conducted using STATA.ResultsOver three-quarters of respondents identified colleagues with ties to decision-makers, institutional affiliation and conducting policy-relevant research as the highest facilitators. Several identified time constraints, academic incentives and financial support as important contributors to engagement. Faculty characteristics, such as research areas of expertise, career track and faculty rank, were found to be statistically significantly associated with facilitators. The top three intervention priorities that emerged were (1) creating incentives for engagement, (2) providing funding for engagement and (3) inculcating an institutional culture around engagement.ConclusionsThe data suggest that five principal categories of factors – individual characteristics, institutional environment, relational dynamics, research focus and funder policies – affect the willingness and ability of academic faculty to engage with government decision-makers. This study suggests that SPHs could enhance the relevance of their role in health policy decision-making by (1) periodically measuring engagement with decision-makers; (2) enhancing individual capacity in knowledge translation and communication, taking faculty characteristics into account; (3) institutionalising a culture that supports policies and practices for engagement in decision-making processes; and (4) creating a strategy to expand and nurture trusted, relevant networks and relationships with decision-makers.