Results of an Academic Promotion and Career Path Survey of Faculty at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

Thomas, Patricia A.; Diener‐West, Marie; Canto, Marcia I.; Martin, Don R.; Post, Wendy S.; Streiff, Michael B.

doi:10.1097/00001888-200403000-00013

Cited by 141 publications

(96 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…6,9,11 Academic physicians are thus naturally drawn to activities that will result in scholarship, thereby optimizing their likelihood of being promoted. 4,11,21 In any field, smart individuals will take note of what is rewarded and will direct their activities accordingly. 22,23 As a result, many academic faculty elect to limit their time spent in teaching and in clinical care so as to spend greater time on the activity that brings acknowledgement and reward.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implications of Academic Medicine's Failure to Recognize Clinical Excellence

Durso¹,

Christmas²,

Kravet³

et al. 2009

Clinical Medicine & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To better understand the implications of inadequately recognizing clinical excellence in academia by exploring the perspectives of clinically excellent faculty within prominent American departments of medicine.Design: Qualitative study. Setting: 8 academic institutions.Participants: 24 clinically excellent department of medicine physicians. Methods:Between March 1 and May 31, 2007, investigators conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with 24 clinically excellent physicians at leading academic institutions. Interview transcripts were independently coded by two investigators and compared for agreement. Content analysis identified themes related to clinical excellence in academia.Results: Twenty informants (83%) were Associate Professors or Professors, 8 (33%) were females, and the physicians hailed from a wide range of internal medicine specialties. The mean percent effort spent in clinical care by the physicians was 48%. The five domains that emerged related to academic medicine's failure to recognize clinical excellence were: (1) low morale and prestige among clinicians, (2) less than excellent patient care, (3) loss of talented clinicians, (4) a lack of commitment to improve patient care systems, and (5) fewer excellent clinician role models to inspire trainees.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implications of Academic Medicine's Failure to Recognize Clinical Excellence

Durso¹,

Christmas²,

Kravet³

et al. 2009

Clinical Medicine & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unfortunately, clinician educators themselves are not protected by duty hour policies or patient caps. They are at risk for slower trajectories to promotion despite their intensive duty hours because more intensive clinical activities do not translate into activities more highly regarded by promotion committees 16 .…”

Section: Methods Of Quantifying Educational Contributions and Aligningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of the Contributions of Clinician Educators

Hauer

Papadakis

2009

J GEN INTERN MED

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…First, to evaluate data inaccuracies, we estimated our primary hierarchical multivariable model of faculty rank among registered physician members as well as among nonmembers. Second, because we lacked information on career track (clinical vs research) and full-or part-time status, both of which could confound sex differences in faculty rank, 17 we investigated sex differences in faculty rank among faculty with NIH funding, who presumably were more likely on full-time research tracks.…”

Section: Sensitivity Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sex Differences in Academic Rank in US Medical Schools in 2014

Jena

Khullar

et al. 2016

Obstetrical &Amp; Gynecological Survey

137

200

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE-The proportion of women at the rank of full professor in US medical schools has not increased since 1980 and remains below that of men. Whether differences in age, experience, specialty, and research productivity between sexes explain persistent disparities in faculty rank has not been studied. OBJECTIVE-To analyze sex differences in faculty rank among US academic physicians.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS-We analyzed sex differences in faculty rank using a cross-sectional comprehensive database of US physicians with medical school faculty appointments in 2014 (91 073 physicians; 9.1% of all US physicians), linked to information on physician sex, age, years since residency, specialty, authored publications, National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, and clinical trial investigation. We estimated sex differences in full professorship, as well as a combined outcome of associate or full professorship, adjusting for these factors in a multilevel (hierarchical) model. We also analyzed how sex differences varied with specialty and whether differences were more prevalent at schools ranked highly in research. Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funder had no involvement in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. EXPOSURES-PhysicianAuthor Contributions: Dr Jena had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. . Women faculty were younger and disproportionately represented in internal medicine and pediatrics. The mean total number of publications for women was 11.6 vs 24.8 for men, for a difference of −13.2 (95% CI, −13.6 to −12.7); the mean first-or last-author publications for women was 5.9 vs 13.7 for men, for a difference of −7.8 (95% CI, −8.1 to −7.5). Among 9.1% of medical faculty with an NIH grant, 6.8%(2059 of 30 464) were women and 10.3% (6237 of 60 609) were men, for a difference of −3.5%(95% CI, −3.9% to −3.1%). In all, 6.4% of women vs 8.8% of men had a trial registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, for a difference of −2.4%(95% CI, −2.8% to −2.0%). After multivariable adjustment, women were less likely than men to have achieved full-professor status (absolute adjusted difference in proportion, −3.8%; 95% CI, −4.4% to −3.3%). Sex-differences in full professorship were present across all specialties and did not vary according to whether a physician's medical school was ranked highly in terms of research funding.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE-Among physicians with faculty appointments at US medical schools, there were sex differences in academic faculty rank, with women substantially less likely than men to be full professors, after accounting for age, experience, specialty, and measures of research productivity.The total number of women entering US medical schools has increased since 1970. Women now make up half of all US graduates. 1 However, se...

show abstract

Results of an Academic Promotion and Career Path Survey of Faculty at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

Cited by 141 publications

References 21 publications

Implications of Academic Medicine's Failure to Recognize Clinical Excellence

Implications of Academic Medicine's Failure to Recognize Clinical Excellence

Assessment of the Contributions of Clinician Educators

Sex Differences in Academic Rank in US Medical Schools in 2014

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About