P Curtis1, A Reid, W Newton. 1. Department of Family Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To address the continuing need for research-oriented faculty in primary care, the Bureau of Health Professions in 1988 funded 10 National Research Service Award (NRSA) Primary Care Fellowship Program grants. We report an early evaluation of these programs. METHOD: Descriptions of fellowship programs were obtained from grant proposals. Fellows with at least one year of training completed a mailed questionnaire that included both structured and open-ended items. RESULTS: All programs emphasized research and gave mentorship explicit attention. Nine offered degree programs; six offered a third year of study. Twenty-seven of 32 eligible fellows returned the survey. They reported a median of three research projects during the fellowship. Sixty percent of fellows had extramural funding; 48% submitted manuscripts for publication; and 22% had work accepted for publication. In open-ended responses, fellows emphasized the importance of mentors' guidance on projects, accessibility, and emotional support; rarely did they mention help in establishing professional networks or in securing project funding. Fellows most appreciated the collegiality and protected atmosphere of fellowship programs, although they felt that both human and material resources were less than optimal. CONCLUSIONS: Fellowship environments are generally conducive to productivity, and fellows undertake relevant primary care research. Programs should devote more attention to mentoring, especially regarding networking and obtaining funding. Funding agencies should increase support for training-related expenses in lieu of research grants that subsidize NRSA training in other specialties.
BACKGROUND: To address the continuing need for research-oriented faculty in primary care, the Bureau of Health Professions in 1988 funded 10 National Research Service Award (NRSA) Primary Care Fellowship Program grants. We report an early evaluation of these programs. METHOD: Descriptions of fellowship programs were obtained from grant proposals. Fellows with at least one year of training completed a mailed questionnaire that included both structured and open-ended items. RESULTS: All programs emphasized research and gave mentorship explicit attention. Nine offered degree programs; six offered a third year of study. Twenty-seven of 32 eligible fellows returned the survey. They reported a median of three research projects during the fellowship. Sixty percent of fellows had extramural funding; 48% submitted manuscripts for publication; and 22% had work accepted for publication. In open-ended responses, fellows emphasized the importance of mentors' guidance on projects, accessibility, and emotional support; rarely did they mention help in establishing professional networks or in securing project funding. Fellows most appreciated the collegiality and protected atmosphere of fellowship programs, although they felt that both human and material resources were less than optimal. CONCLUSIONS: Fellowship environments are generally conducive to productivity, and fellows undertake relevant primary care research. Programs should devote more attention to mentoring, especially regarding networking and obtaining funding. Funding agencies should increase support for training-related expenses in lieu of research grants that subsidize NRSA training in other specialties.
Authors: Philip J Landrigan; Alan D Woolf; Ben Gitterman; Bruce Lanphear; Joel Forman; Catherine Karr; Erin L Moshier; James Godbold; Ellen Crain Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 9.031