Clinician-Educator Training and Its Impact on Career Success: a Mixed Methods Study.

Autor: Zipkin DA; Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. daniella.zipkin@duke.edu., Ramani S; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA., Stankiewicz CA; Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA., Lo MC; Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA., Chisty A; Division of General Internal Medicine, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA., Alexandraki I; Department of Clinical Sciences, Florida State University College of Medicine, Tallahassee, FL, USA., Wamsley M; Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA, USA., Rothenberger SD; Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA., Jeong K; Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA., Spagnoletti CL; Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Journal of general internal medicine [J Gen Intern Med] 2020 Dec; Vol. 35 (12), pp. 3492-3500. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Aug 10.
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-020-06049-w
Abstrakt: Background: Clinician-educator (CE) careers in academic medicine are heterogeneous. Expectations for CEs have grown, along with a need to better prepare CEs for these roles.
Objective: To assess whether advanced education training is associated with productivity and success.
Design: We used a sequential mixed methods approach, collecting quantitative survey data and qualitative focus groups data. We developed a three-tiered categorization of advanced training to reflect intensity by program type.
Participants: We surveyed CEs in the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) and conducted two focus groups at an SGIM annual meeting.
Main Measures: Primary outcomes were academic productivity (manuscripts, presentations, etc.) and leadership role attainment. Secondary analysis examined the interactive effect of gender and training intensity on these outcomes.
Key Results: A total of 198 completed the survey (response rate 53%). Compared with medium- or low-intensity training, high-intensity training was associated with a greater likelihood of publishing ≥ 3 first- or senior-author manuscripts (adjusted OR 2.6; CI 0.8-8.6; p = 0.002), teaching ≥ 3 lectures/workshops at the regional/national/international level (adjusted OR 5.7; CI 1.5-21.3; p = 0.001), and having ≥ 3 regional/national committee memberships (adjusted OR 3.4; CI 1.0-11.7; p = 0.04). Among participants in the "no training" and "high-intensity training" categories, men were more likely to have ≥ 3 publications (OR 4.87 and 3.17, respectively), while women in the high intensity category had a likelihood similar to men with no training (OR 4.81 vs. OR 4.87). Participants felt the value of advanced training exists not only in content but also in networking opportunities that programs provide.
Conclusions: While opinions were divided as to whether advanced training is necessary to position oneself for education roles, it is associated with greater academic productivity and reduced gender disparity in the publication domain. Institutions should consider providing opportunities for CEs to pursue advanced education training.
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: