BACKGROUND: There is increased interest in part-time (PT) positions at academic medical centers (AMCs). Faculty and institutional leaders may have concerns about the potential for academic advancement among PT faculty. Our objective was to determine the impact of working PT on measures of academic productivity. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was mailed to PT and full-time (FT) physicians in U.S. divisions of general internal medicine. Outcome measures included publications and funding. We used multivariate analysis to identify factors associated with academic productivity. RESULTS: The response rate was 63% (176 of 279); 91% of respondents were women (160 of 176). Compared with FT faculty, PT faculty were more often clinicians (Cs) or clinician-educators (CEs) (78% vs. 96%, p < 0.001), were less likely to be fellowship trained (44% vs. 23%, p < 0.001), and reported less academic support, including administrative assistance (84% vs. 67%, p = 0.008), mentoring (71% vs. 54%, p = 0.02), and research support (43% vs. 25%, p = 0.01). PT faculty spent a greater percentage of their time in patient care (55% vs. 45%, p = 0.01) and teaching (32% vs. 23%, p = 0.01) and less time in research activities (5% vs. 15%, p = 0.01) compared with FT faculty. Among Cs and CEs, FT faculty reported more publications (median 2, interquartile range [IQR 5] vs. median 0, IQR 1, p < 0.001) and funding (odds ratio [OR] 2.85, 95% confidence internal [CI] 1.36-5.98). Multivariate analyses showed that fellowship training, mentors, academic support, and number of total years worked were associated with publications and acquisition of funding. There were no associations between working PT and publications or funding. CONCLUSIONS: PT faculty report fewer publications and grants. This may be related to insufficient training and academic support. AMCs wanting to facilitate the success of their PT faculty may need to expand the support available to them.
BACKGROUND: There is increased interest in part-time (PT) positions at academic medical centers (AMCs). Faculty and institutional leaders may have concerns about the potential for academic advancement among PT faculty. Our objective was to determine the impact of working PT on measures of academic productivity. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was mailed to PT and full-time (FT) physicians in U.S. divisions of general internal medicine. Outcome measures included publications and funding. We used multivariate analysis to identify factors associated with academic productivity. RESULTS: The response rate was 63% (176 of 279); 91% of respondents were women (160 of 176). Compared with FT faculty, PT faculty were more often clinicians (Cs) or clinician-educators (CEs) (78% vs. 96%, p < 0.001), were less likely to be fellowship trained (44% vs. 23%, p < 0.001), and reported less academic support, including administrative assistance (84% vs. 67%, p = 0.008), mentoring (71% vs. 54%, p = 0.02), and research support (43% vs. 25%, p = 0.01). PT faculty spent a greater percentage of their time in patient care (55% vs. 45%, p = 0.01) and teaching (32% vs. 23%, p = 0.01) and less time in research activities (5% vs. 15%, p = 0.01) compared with FT faculty. Among Cs and CEs, FT faculty reported more publications (median 2, interquartile range [IQR 5] vs. median 0, IQR 1, p < 0.001) and funding (odds ratio [OR] 2.85, 95% confidence internal [CI] 1.36-5.98). Multivariate analyses showed that fellowship training, mentors, academic support, and number of total years worked were associated with publications and acquisition of funding. There were no associations between working PT and publications or funding. CONCLUSIONS: PT faculty report fewer publications and grants. This may be related to insufficient training and academic support. AMCs wanting to facilitate the success of their PT faculty may need to expand the support available to them.
Authors: Karen M Freund; Anita Raj; Samantha E Kaplan; Norma Terrin; Janis L Breeze; Tracy H Urech; Phyllis L Carr Journal: Acad Med Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 6.893