Dataset Information

Determining the Drivers of Academic Success in Surgery: An Analysis of 3,850 Faculty.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Determine drivers of academic productivity within U.S. departments of surgery.

Methods

Eighty academic metrics for 3,850 faculty at the top 50 NIH-funded university- and 5 outstanding hospital-based surgical departments were collected using websites, Scopus, and NIH RePORTER.

Results

Mean faculty size was 76. Overall, there were 35.3% assistant, 27.8% associate, and 36.9% full professors. Women comprised 21.8%; 4.9% were MD-PhDs and 6.1% PhDs. By faculty-rank, median publications/citations were: assistant, 14/175, associate, 39/649 and full-professor, 97/2250. General surgery divisions contributed the most publications and citations. Highest performing sub-specialties per faculty member were: research (58/1683), transplantation (51/1067), oncology (41/777), and cardiothoracic surgery (48/860). Overall, 23.5% of faculty were principal investigators for a current or former NIH grant, 9.5% for a current or former R01/U01/P01. The 10 most cited faculty (MCF) within each department contributed to 42% of all publications and 55% of all citations. MCF were most commonly general (25%), oncology (19%), or transplant surgeons (15%). Fifty-one-percent of MCF had current/former NIH funding, compared with 20% of the rest (p<0.05); funding rates for R01/U01/P01 grants was 25.1% vs. 6.8% (p<0.05). Rate of current-NIH MCF funding correlated with higher total departmental NIH rank (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Departmental academic productivity as defined by citations and NIH funding is highly driven by sections or divisions of research, general and transplantation surgery. MCF, regardless of subspecialty, contribute disproportionally to major grants and publications. Approaches that attract, develop, and retain funded MCF may be associated with dramatic increases in total departmental citations and NIH-funding.

SUBMITTER: Valsangkar NP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4503730 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Determining the Drivers of Academic Success in Surgery: An Analysis of 3,850 Faculty.

Valsangkar Nakul P NP Zimmers Teresa A TA Kim Bradford J BJ Blanton Casi C Joshi Mugdha M MM Bell Teresa M TM Nakeeb Attila A Dunnington Gary L GL Koniaris Leonidas G LG

PloS one 20150715 7

<h4>Objective</h4>Determine drivers of academic productivity within U.S. departments of surgery.<h4>Methods</h4>Eighty academic metrics for 3,850 faculty at the top 50 NIH-funded university- and 5 outstanding hospital-based surgical departments were collected using websites, Scopus, and NIH RePORTER.<h4>Results</h4>Mean faculty size was 76. Overall, there were 35.3% assistant, 27.8% associate, and 36.9% full professors. Women comprised 21.8%; 4.9% were MD-PhDs and 6.1% PhDs. By faculty-rank, med ...[more]

PMID: 26177096

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceBecause mentorship is critical for professional development and career advancement, it is essential to examine the status of mentorship and identify challenges that junior surgical faculty (assistant and associate professors) face obtaining effective mentorship.ObjectiveTo evaluate the mentorship experience for junior surgical faculty and highlight areas for improvement.Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative study was an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study including an anonymous survey on mentorship followed by semistructured interviews to expand on survey findings. Junior surgical faculty from 18 US academic surgery programs were included in the anonymous survey and interviews. Survey responses between "formal" (assigned by the department) vs "informal" (sought out by the faculty) mentors and male vs female junior faculty were compared using χ2 tests. Interview responses were analyzed for themes until thematic saturation was achieved. Survey responses were collected from November 2022 to August 2023, and interviews conducted from July to December 2023.ExposureMentorship from formal and/or informal mentors.Main outcomes and measuresSurvey gauged the availability and satisfaction with formal and informal mentorship; interviews assessed broad themes regarding mentorship.ResultsOf 825 survey recipients, 333 (40.4%) responded; 155 (51.7%) were male and 134 (44.6%) female. Nearly all respondents (319 [95.8%]) agreed or strongly agreed that mentorship is important to their surgical career, especially for professional networking (309 respondents [92.8%]), career advancement (301 [90.4%]), and research (294 [88.3%]). However, only 58 respondents (18.3%) had a formal mentor. More female than male faculty had informal mentors (123 [91.8%] vs 123 [79.4%]; P = .003). Overall satisfaction was higher with informal mentorship than formal mentorship (221 [85.0%] vs 40 [69.0%]; P = .01). Most male and female faculty reported no preferences in gender or race and ethnicity for their mentors. When asked if they had good mentor options if they wanted to change mentors, 141 (47.8%) responded no. From the interviews (n = 20), 6 themes were identified, including absence of mentorship infrastructure, preferred mentor characteristics, and optimizing mentorship.Conclusions and relevanceAcademic junior surgical faculty agree mentorship is vital to their careers. However, this study found that few had formal mentors and almost half need more satisfactory options if they want to change mentors. Academic surgical programs should adopt a framework for facilitating mentorship and optimize mentor-mentee relationships through alignment of mentor-mentee goals and needs.

Project description:BackgroundCalls to improve student learning and increase the number of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) college and university graduates assert the need for widespread adoption of evidence-based instructional practices in undergraduate STEM courses. For successful reforms to take hold and endure, it is likely that a significant shift in culture around teaching is needed. This study seeks to describe the initial response of faculty to an effort to shift teaching norms, with a long-term goal of altering the culture around teaching and learning in STEM. While the effort was envisioned and led at the institutional level, dialog about the proposed change and actions taken by faculty was emergent and supported within departments.ResultsFaculty identify a variety of barriers to proposed changes in teaching practice; however, faculty also identify a variety of drivers that might help the institution alter teaching and learning norms. Analysis of faculty responses reveals 18 categories of barriers and 15 categories of drivers in faculty responses. Many of the barrier and driver categories were present in each department's responses; however, the distribution and frequency with which they appear reveals departmental differences that are important for moving forward with strategies to change teaching practice.ConclusionsAddressing faculty's barriers to change is essential, but identifying and leveraging faculty's drivers for the change is potentially equally important in efforts to catalyze changes that are supported or constrained by the local context. Further, the collection of faculty perspectives opens a dialog around the current and future state of teaching, an important step in laying the groundwork for change. Departmental differences in barriers and drivers make clear the importance of "knowing" the local contexts so strategies adopted by departments can be appropriately tailored. Results are discussed in light of what kind of strategies might be employed to effect changes in STEM education.

Project description:ObjectiveMany studies have analysed gender bias in academic medicine; however, no comprehensive synthesis of the literature has been performed. We conducted a pooled analysis of the difference in the proportion of men versus women with full professorship among academic physicians.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Education Resources Information Center and PsycINFO were searched from inception to 3 July 2020.Study selectionAll original studies reporting faculty rank stratified by gender worldwide were included.Data extraction and synthesisStudy screening, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers, with a third author resolving discrepancies. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models.ResultsOur search yielded 5897 articles. 218 studies were included with 991 207 academic physician data points. Men were 2.77 times more likely to be full professors (182 271/643 790 men vs 30 349/251 501 women, OR 2.77, 95% CI 2.57 to 2.98). Although men practised for longer (median 18 vs 12 years, p<0.00002), the gender gap remained after pooling seven studies that adjusted for factors including time in practice, specialty, publications, h-index, additional PhD and institution (adjusted OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.20). Meta-regression by data collection year demonstrated improvement over time (p=0.0011); however, subgroup analysis showed that gender disparities remain significant in the 2010-2020 decade (OR 2.63, 95% CI 2.48 to 2.80). The gender gap was present across all specialties and both within and outside of North America. Men published more papers (mean difference 17.2, 95% CI 14.7 to 19.7), earned higher salaries (mean difference $33 256, 95% CI $25 969 to $40 542) and were more likely to be departmental chairs (OR 2.61, 95% CI 2.19 to 3.12).ConclusionsGender inequity in academic medicine exists across all specialties, geographical regions and multiple measures of success, including academic rank, publications, salary and leadership. Men are more likely than women to be full professors after controlling for experience, academic productivity and specialty. Although there has been some improvement over time, the gender disparity in faculty rank persists.Prospero registration numberCRD42020197414.

Project description:IntroductionDespite the increasing diversity of individuals entering medicine, physicians from racial and sexual minority groups continue to experience bias and discrimination in the workplace. The objective of this study was to determine the current experiences and perceptions of discrimination on the basis of race and sexual orientation among academic emergency medicine (EM) faculty.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of EM faculty across six programs. Survey items included the Overt Gender Discrimination at Work (OGDW) Scale adapted for race and sexual orientation, and the frequency and source of experienced and observed discrimination. Group comparisons were made using t-tests or chi-square analyses, and relationships between race or sexual orientation, and we evaluated physicians' experiences using correlation analyses.ResultsA total of 141 out of 352 (40.1%) subjects completed at least a portion of the survey. Non-White physicians reported higher mean racial OGDW scores than their White counterparts (13.4 vs 8.6; 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference, -7.7 - -2.9). Non-White EM faculty were also more likely to report having experienced discriminatory treatment based on race than were White EM faculty (48.0% vs 12.6%; CI for difference, 16.6% - 54.2%), although both groups were equally likely to report having observed race-based discrimination of another physician. EM faculty who identified as sexual minorities reported higher mean sexual minority OGDW scores than their heterosexual counterparts (11.1 vs 7.1; 95% CI for difference, -7.3 - -0.6). There were no significant differences between sexual minority and heterosexual faculty in their reports of experiencing or observing discrimination based on sexual orientation.ConclusionEM faculty from racial and sexual minority groups perceived more discrimination based on race or sexual orientation in their workplace than their majority counterparts. EM faculty regardless of race or sexual orientation were similar in their observations of discriminatory treatment of another physician based on race or sexual orientation.

Dataset Information

Determining the Drivers of Academic Success in Surgery: An Analysis of 3,850 Faculty.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Determining the Drivers of Academic Success in Surgery: An Analysis of 3,850 Faculty.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets