Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Hinojosa, Jose; Benè, Kristen L.; Hickey, Colleen; Marvel, Kim (2009)
Publisher: Co-Action Publishing
Journal: Medical Education Online
Languages: English
Types: Article

Classified by OpenAIRE into

mesheuropmc: humanities
Background and Objectives: This survey examined how family medicine residency programs define scholarly activity, the productivity of programs, and perceived barriers to scholarly work. Five types of residency programs are compared: university-based, community-based (unaffiliated, university-affiliated, university-administered), and military. Methods: A 13 item web-based questionnaire was sent to all 455 U. S. family medicine residency programs. The survey solicited demographic information as well as program expectations of faculty, presence of a research coordinator/director, activities considered scholarly, productivity, and perceived barriers. Results: A total of 177 surveys were completed for a response rate of 38%, similar to response rates of web-based surveys in the literature. 67.6% of programs encouraged, but did not require scholarly activity, and 44.5% indicated their program had no research coordinator/ director. University-based programs had the highest levels of productivity compared to other program types. Primary barriers to scholarly activity noted were lack of time (73/138, 53%) and lack of supportive infrastructure (37/138, 27%). Conclusions: While interpretations are limited by the response rate of the survey, results provide an increased understanding of how programs define scholarly activity as well as reference points for faculty productivity. This information can help program directors when setting criteria for scholarly work. Keywords: research, faculty productivity, scholarly activity
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Requirements for residency education
    • 2. Martin JC, Avant RF, Bowman MA, Bucholtz JR, Dickinson JR, Evans KL, et al. The Future of Family Medicine: a collaborative project of the family medicine community. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(suppl 1):S3-32.
    • 3. Lam CL. The 21st century: the age of family medicine research? Ann Fam Med 2004;2(Suppl 2): S50-4.
    • 4. Kruse JE, Bradley J, Wesley RM, Markwell SJ. Research support infrastructure and productivity in US family practice residency programs. Acad Med. 2003;78:54-60
    • 5. Mainous AG 3rd, Hueston WJ, Ye X, Bazell C. A comparison of family medicine research in research intense and less intense institutions. Arch Fam Med. 2000;9:1100-4.
    • 6. Mills OF, Zyzanski SJ, Flocke S. Factors associated with research productivity in family practice residencies. Fam Med. 1995;27:188-93.
    • 7. Ferrer RL, Katerndahl DA. Predictors of shortterm and long-term scholarly activity by academic faculty: a departmental case study. Fam Med 2002;34:455-61.
    • 8. Young RA, DeHaven MJ, Passmore C, Baumer JG. Research participation, protected time, and research output by family physicians in family medicine residencies. Fam Med. 2006;38:341-8.
    • 9. Bland CJ, Ruffin MT 4 th. Characteristics of a productive research environment: literature review. Acad Med. 1992;67:385-97.
    • 10. DeHaven MJ, Wilson GR, O'Connor-Kettlestrings P. Creating a research culture: what we can learn from residencies that are successful in research. Fam Med. 1998;30:501-7.
    • 11. American Academy of Family Physicians. Directory of family practice residency programs [database on the Internet]. Leawood (KS): The Association; 2005 [cited 2006 Jan]. Available from: http://www.aafp.org/residencies/
    • 12. Sheehan K. E-mail survey response rates: A review. JCMC [serial on the Internet]. 2001 [cited 2006 Jan];6(2):[about 18 p.]. Available from: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue2/sheehan.html
    • 13. Cook C, Heath F, Thompson RL. A meta-analysis of response rates in web-or internet-based surveys. Educ Psychol Meas. 2000;60:821-36.
    • 14. Fincher RM, Simpson DE, Mennin SP, Rosenfeld GC,Rothman A, McGrew MC, Hansen et al. Scholarship in teaching: an imperative for the 21st century. Acad Med. 2000;75:887-94.
    • 15. Glassick CE, Huber MT, Maeroff GI. Scholarship assessed: evaluation of the professoriate. San Fransisco (CA): Jossey-Bass; 1997.
    • 16. Bland CJ, Center BA, Finstad DA, Risbey KR, Staples JG. A theoretical, practical, predictive model of faculty and department research productivity. Acad Med. 2005;80:225-37.
    • 17. Neale AV. A national survey of research requirements for family practice residents and faculty. Fam Med. 2002;34:262-7.
    • 18. Oeffinger KC, Roaten SP Jr, Ader DN, Buchanan RJ. Support and rewards for scholarly activity in family medicine: A national survey. Fam Med. 1997;29:508-12.
    • 19. Katerndahl DA. Associations between departmental features and departmental scholarly activity. Fam Med. 1996;28:119-27
    • 10. In the past year, how many were involved in the above activities: Physician Faculty ___ Non-physician faculty ____
    • 11. What changes to your program would increase scholarly activity?
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article

Collected from