Literature DB >> 15504779

The views of U.S. medical school deans toward academic primary care.

Robert H Friedman1, Sandhya Wahi-Gururaj, Joel Alpert, Howard Bauchner, Larry Culpepper, Timothy Heeren, Allen Singer.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To understand the views of U.S. medical school deans about their primary care faculties.
METHOD: In 2000, the authors mailed a questionnaire containing 43 multipart items to deans of 130 U.S. allopathic medical schools. The questionnaire assessed the deans' attitudes about and evaluation of primary care at their school and their school's efforts to strengthen it. Deans were asked to compare family medicine, general internal medicine, and general pediatrics with nonprimary care clinical departments at their schools.
RESULTS: Of the 83 (64%) deans who responded, 82% reported their school had departments or divisions of family medicine, general internal medicine, and general pediatrics. Deans rated general internal medicine and general pediatrics higher than nonprimary care faculty on clinical expertise and productivity (p < .001) and family medicine equivalent to nonprimary care faculty. Deans rated all three primary care faculties superior to nonprimary care faculty for teaching skills (p < .001) and programs (p < .05), but lower than nonprimary care disciplines for research productivity (p < .01) and revenues (p < .001). They rated family medicine and general pediatrics lower for research skills (p < .001), but 73% of deans stated research was equally important for primary care and nonprimary care departments. Deans considered overall financial resources to be equivalent for primary care and nonprimary care departments, but 77% of deans felt primary care departments or divisions needed financial support from the medical school to survive. Most deans attempted to strengthen primary care by changing the curriculum to promote primary care and by providing financial support.
CONCLUSIONS: Deans ranked primary care faculty high on clinical and teaching measures. Although they considered research to be an important activity for primary care faculty, they evaluated it low relative to nonprimary care departments.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15504779     DOI: 10.1097/00001888-200411000-00018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Med        ISSN: 1040-2446            Impact factor:   6.893


  4 in total

Review 1.  Shaping the future of academic health centers: the potential contributions of departments of family medicine.

Authors:  Warren P Newton; C Annette DuBard
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2006 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.166

2.  Family medicine research capacity building: five-weekend programs in Ontario.

Authors:  Walter Rosser; Marshall Godwin; Rachelle Seguin
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 3.275

3.  Residency research requirements and the CanMEDS-FM scholar role: perspectives of residents and recent graduates.

Authors:  Jonathan Koo; Jason Bains; Marisa B Collins; Shafik Dharamsi
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 3.275

4.  Lower Rates of Promotion of Generalists in Academic Medicine: A Follow-up to the National Faculty Survey.

Authors:  Deborah Blazey-Martin; Phyllis L Carr; Norma Terrin; Janis L Breeze; Carolyn Luk; Anita Raj; Karen M Freund
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2017-01-24       Impact factor: 5.128

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.