 |
|
A Comparison of Family Medicine Research in Research Intense and Less Intense Institutions
Arch G. Mainous, III, PhD;
William J. Hueston, MD;
Xiaobu Ye, MD, MS;
Carol Bazell, MD
Arch Fam Med. 2000;9:1100-1104.
Background Family medicine is a relatively new specialty that has been trying to develop a research base for 30 years. It is unclear how institutional research success and emphasis have affected the research productivity of family medicine departments.
Objective To examine the research infrastructure, productivity, and barriers to productivity in academic family medicine in research intense and less intense institutions.
Design, Setting, and Participants A survey of 124 chairs among institutional members of the Association of Departments of Family Medicine. Departments were categorized as being associated with research intense institutions (defined as the top 40 in National Institute of Health funding) or less intense institutions.
Main Outcome Measures Prioritization of research as a mission, number of funded research grants, total number of research articles published, and number of faculty and staff conducting research.
Results The response rate was 55% (N = 68). Of 5 potential ratings on the survey, research was the fourth highest departmental priority in both categories of institutions. Departments in research intense institutions were larger, had more faculty on investigational tracks, and employed more research support staff (P<.05). Neither category of department published a large number (median = 10 in both groups) of peer-reviewed articles per year. Controlling for the number of full-time equivalent faculty, the departments in less intense institutions published a median of 0.7 articles, while the research intense institutions published 0.5 (P = .30). Departments in research intense institutions received more grant funding (P<.005) in both unadjusted and adjusted analyses. Chairs reported a scarcity of qualified applicants for research physician faculty openings.
Conclusion Future initiatives should focus on prioritizing research and creating a critical mass of researchers in family medicine.
From the Department of Family Medicine (Drs Mainous, Hueston, and Ye) and the Center for Health Care Research (Drs Mainous and Ye), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; and the Division of Medicine, Bureau of Health Professions, Health Resources and Services Administration, Rockville, Md (Dr Bazell).
RELATED ARTICLE
Why Family Practice Research?
Barry D. Weiss
Arch Fam Med. 2000;9(10):1105-1107.
FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Off the Roadmap? Family Medicine's Grant Funding and Committee Representation at NIH
Lucan et al.
Ann Fam Med 2008;6:534-542.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Journal Publication Productivity in Academic Physical Therapy Programs in the United States and Puerto Rico From 1998 to 2002
Richter et al.
ptjournal 2008;88:376-386.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Research Published in 2003 by U.S. Family Medicine Authors
Pathman et al.
J Am Board Fam Med 2008;21:6-16.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The State of Resident Research in Family Medicine: Small but Growing
Carek and Mainous
Ann Fam Med 2008;6:S2-S4.
FULL TEXT
NIH Funding in Family Medicine: An Analysis of 2003 Awards.
Rabinowitz et al.
Ann Fam Med 2006;4:437-442.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Being Successful with Family Medicine Residency Research: Lessons Learned from Others
From the Association of Family Practice Residency
Ann Fam Med 2003;1:246-247.
FULL TEXT
Why Family Practice Research?
Weiss
Arch Fam Med 2000;9:1105-1107.
FULL TEXT
|
