Stacey A Teruya1, Shahrzad Bazargan-Hejazi2, Mona Mojtahedzadeh3, Megha Doshi3, Katherine Russell4, Darlene Parker-Kelly5, Theodore C Friedman6. 1. Assistant Professor, Division of Endocrinology, Department of Internal Medicine at Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science, and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). 2. Professor in the Department of Psychiatry at Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science (CDU) and Chair of the CDU/UCLA Medical Student Research Thesis program. She holds a joint appointment as Adjunct Professor at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). 3. Student researcher in the Division of Endocrinology, Department of Internal Medicine, Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science; 4. Senior librarian at Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science; 5. Director of the Health Sciences Library, Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science; 6. Professor of Medicine, Chief of the Division of Endocrinology, and Chair of the Department of Internal Medicine at Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science;
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVE: To review, compare and synthesize current faculty development programs and components. Findings are expected to facilitate research that will increase the competency and competitiveness of less-established biomedical research faculty. METHODS: We reviewed the current literature on research faculty development programs, and report on their type, components, outcomes and limitations. RESULTS: Nineteen articles met inclusion criteria. There were no prospective studies; most were observational and all lacked a control group. Mentoring was the most successful program type, and guided and participatory learning the most successful enabling mechanism, in achieving stated program goals. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are limited by the small number of current studies, wide variation in implementation, study design, and populations, and the lack of uniform metrics. However, results suggest that future prospective, randomized studies should employ quantitative criteria, and examine individual, human factors that predict "success."
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVE: To review, compare and synthesize current faculty development programs and components. Findings are expected to facilitate research that will increase the competency and competitiveness of less-established biomedical research faculty. METHODS: We reviewed the current literature on research faculty development programs, and report on their type, components, outcomes and limitations. RESULTS: Nineteen articles met inclusion criteria. There were no prospective studies; most were observational and all lacked a control group. Mentoring was the most successful program type, and guided and participatory learning the most successful enabling mechanism, in achieving stated program goals. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are limited by the small number of current studies, wide variation in implementation, study design, and populations, and the lack of uniform metrics. However, results suggest that future prospective, randomized studies should employ quantitative criteria, and examine individual, human factors that predict "success."
Entities:
Keywords:
Research faculty development; grants; mentoring; open learning; training curriculum
Authors: Brian L Strom; Thomas O Kelly; Sandra A Norman; John T Farrar; Stephen E Kimmel; Ebbing Lautenbach; Harold I Feldman Journal: Acad Med Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Kaveh G Shojania; Margaret Sampson; Mohammed T Ansari; Jun Ji; Steve Doucette; David Moher Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2007-07-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Charlotte Tulinius; Anni Brit Sternhagen Nielsen; Lars J Hansen; Christian Hermann; Lioudmila Vlasova; Rikke Dalsted Journal: Qual Prim Care Date: 2012
Authors: Estela Estape; Lourdes E Soto de Laurido; Magda Shaheen; Alexander Quarshie; Walter Frontera; Mary Helen Mays; Rosanne Harrigan; Richard White Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2011-11-07 Impact factor: 4.689
Authors: Abigail M Brown; Jason D Morrow; Lee E Limbird; Daniel W Byrne; Steven G Gabbe; Jeffrey R Balser; Nancy J Brown Journal: Acad Med Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Estela S Estape; Alexander Quarshie; Barbara Segarra; María San Martin; Ruth Ríos; Karen Martínez; Jacquelyn Ali; Ulochi Nwagwu; Elizabeth Ofili; Priscilla Pemu Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 1.798
Authors: Lynda B Ransdell; Taylor S Lane; Anna L Schwartz; Heidi A Wayment; Julie A Baldwin Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 3.390