TY - JOUR
T1 - Clinician-Educator Training and Its Impact on Career Success
T2 - a Mixed Methods Study
AU - Zipkin, Daniella A.
AU - Ramani, Subha
AU - Stankiewicz, Corrie A.
AU - Lo, Margaret C.
AU - Chisty, Alia
AU - Alexandraki, Irene
AU - Wamsley, Maria
AU - Rothenberger, Scott D.
AU - Jeong, Kwonho
AU - Spagnoletti, Carla L.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020, Society of General Internal Medicine.
PY - 2020/12
Y1 - 2020/12
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85089295588&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85089295588&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s11606-020-06049-w
DO - 10.1007/s11606-020-06049-w
M3 - Article
C2 - 32779134
AN - SCOPUS:85089295588
SN - 0884-8734
VL - 35
SP - 3492
EP - 3500
JO - Journal of general internal medicine
JF - Journal of general internal medicine
IS - 12
ER -