Building a Culture of Scholarship Within a Family Medicine Department: a Successful Eight-Year Journey of Incremental Interventions Following a Historical Perspective of Family Medicine Research

Underfunding for Research Training and Career Development: The Impact on Family Medicine Research

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The National Institutes of Health and related federal awards for research training (RT) and research career development (RCD) are designed to prepare applicants for research careers. We compared funding rates for RT and RCD for anesthesiology, dermatology, emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, neurology, obstetrics-gynecology, pathology, pediatrics, and psychiatry.

METHODS

We estimated the denominator using the number of residency graduates from different specialties from 2001 to 2010 from the Association of American Medical Colleges data. For the numerator, we used published data on federally funded awards by specialty from 2011 to 2020. We also examined the correlation between RCD funding and overall research funding.

RESULTS

Family medicine had the lowest rate per graduating resident for RT (0.01%) and RCD (0.77%) awards among 10 specialties and was lower than the mean/median for the other nine specialties, ranging from 2.15%/1.19% and 9.83%/8.74%. We found a strong correlation between rates of RCD awards and mean federal funding per active physician, which was statistically significant (ρ=0.77, P=.0098).

CONCLUSIONS

Comparatively low rates for family medicine awards for RT and RCD plausibly contribute to poor federal funding for family medicine research, underscoring the need to bolster the research career pathway in family medicine.

Changing the Culture: Increasing and Sustaining Anesthesiology Resident Physician Publication Rates

Background

Academic inquiry is foundational to the advancement of medicine and resident training and must be demonstrated to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Past attempts at increasing publication rates have failed to identify educational best practice models. Our aim was to increase resident publication rates via culture and value changes that are universally implementable, affordable, effective, and sustainable.

Methods

In 2018, a multifaceted initiative was implemented to shift departmental values and foster a culture of academic productivity. This culture change stressed the value of scientific publication through frequent, consistent messaging from department leaders. In addition, residents were provided the freedom to choose their scholarly activities. In this retrospective cohort innovation, resident authors were identified for 4 academic years before and after the intervention and publication rates were determined (2014-2018 vs 2018-2022). Resident authors and publications per resident per year were compared using descriptive statistics and Student t test.

Results

The pre- and postintervention groups included 38 and 37 residents, respectively. Resident-authored publications increased from 7 preintervention to 24 postintervention, representing 343% of baseline. Mean ± SD publications per resident per year similarly increased 357% from 0.183 ± 0.16 to 0.654 ± 0.11 postintervention. Unpaired t test analysis demonstrated a significant difference in total publications per year (P = .002) and authorship rate (P = .003).

Conclusions

A multifaceted academic initiative resulted in a threefold increase in resident publication rates. This initiative demonstrates that local advocacy by leaders, freedom of choice for authors, and supportive departmental culture are driving factors in publication rates.