BACKGROUND: Many academic medical centres have introduced strategies to assess the productivity of faculty as part of compensation schemes. We conducted a systematic review of the effects of such strategies on faculty productivity. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, Healthstar, Embase and PsycInfo databases from their date of inception up to October 2011. We included studies that assessed academic productivity in clinical, research, teaching and administrative activities, as well as compensation, promotion processes and satisfaction. RESULTS: Of 531 full-text articles assessed for eligibility, we included 9 articles reporting on eight studies. The introduction of strategies for assessing academic productivity as part of compensation schemes resulted in increases in clinical productivity (in six of six studies) in terms of clinical revenue, the work component of relative-value units (these units are nonmonetary standard units of measure used to indicate the value of services provided), patient satisfaction and other departmentally used standards. Increases in research productivity were noted (in five of six studies) in terms of funding and publications. There was no change in teaching productivity (in two of five studies) in terms of educational output. Such strategies also resulted in increases in compensation at both individual and group levels (in three studies), with two studies reporting a change in distribution of compensation in favour of junior faculty. None of the studies assessed effects on administrative productivity or promotion processes. The overall quality of evidence was low. INTERPRETATION: Strategies introduced to assess productivity as part of a compensation scheme appeared to improve productivity in research activities and possibly improved clinical productivity, but they had no effect in the area of teaching. Compensation increased at both group and individual levels, particularly among junior faculty. Higher quality evidence about the benefits and harms of such assessment strategies is needed.
BACKGROUND: Many academic medical centres have introduced strategies to assess the productivity of faculty as part of compensation schemes. We conducted a systematic review of the effects of such strategies on faculty productivity. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, Healthstar, Embase and PsycInfo databases from their date of inception up to October 2011. We included studies that assessed academic productivity in clinical, research, teaching and administrative activities, as well as compensation, promotion processes and satisfaction. RESULTS: Of 531 full-text articles assessed for eligibility, we included 9 articles reporting on eight studies. The introduction of strategies for assessing academic productivity as part of compensation schemes resulted in increases in clinical productivity (in six of six studies) in terms of clinical revenue, the work component of relative-value units (these units are nonmonetary standard units of measure used to indicate the value of services provided), patient satisfaction and other departmentally used standards. Increases in research productivity were noted (in five of six studies) in terms of funding and publications. There was no change in teaching productivity (in two of five studies) in terms of educational output. Such strategies also resulted in increases in compensation at both individual and group levels (in three studies), with two studies reporting a change in distribution of compensation in favour of junior faculty. None of the studies assessed effects on administrative productivity or promotion processes. The overall quality of evidence was low. INTERPRETATION: Strategies introduced to assess productivity as part of a compensation scheme appeared to improve productivity in research activities and possibly improved clinical productivity, but they had no effect in the area of teaching. Compensation increased at both group and individual levels, particularly among junior faculty. Higher quality evidence about the benefits and harms of such assessment strategies is needed.
Authors: Gordon Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Elie A Akl; Regina Kunz; Gunn Vist; Jan Brozek; Susan Norris; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Paul Glasziou; Hans DeBeer; Roman Jaeschke; David Rind; Joerg Meerpohl; Philipp Dahm; Holger J Schünemann Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-12-31 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Diane A Schwartz; Xuan Hui; Catherine G Velopulos; Eric B Schneider; Shalini Selvarajah; Donald Lucas; Elliott R Haut; Nathaniel McQuay; Timothy M Pawlik; David T Efron; Adil H Haider Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: Sachin J Shah; Patrick Cronin; Clemens S Hong; Andrew S Hwang; Jeffrey M Ashburner; Benjamin I Bearnot; Calvin A Richardson; Blair W Fosburgh; Alexandra B Kimball Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-08-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Ana A Baumann; Bobbi J Carothers; John Landsverk; Emily Kryzer; Gregory A Aarons; Ross C Brownson; Charles Glisson; Brian Mittman; Enola K Proctor Journal: Adm Policy Ment Health Date: 2020-03
Authors: Victor F Kairouz; Dany Raad; John Fudyma; Anne B Curtis; Holger J Schünemann; Elie A Akl Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2014-09-26 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Caterina Caminiti; Elisa Iezzi; Caterina Ghetti; Gianluigi De' Angelis; Carlo Ferrari Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2015-10-14 Impact factor: 2.655