ArticleJournal of graduate medical education2014
Financing Residency Training Redesign.
Article in Journal of graduate medical education, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using learning analytics in clinical competency committees: Increasing the impact of competency-based medical education.Medical education online · 2023Article
- An Analysis of the Diversity and Inclusion Content Featured on Ophthalmology Residency Program Web Sites.Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017) · 2022Article
- Remote synchronous toenail procedure training using a sausage model.Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives · 2021Article
- Applying the institutional review board data repository approach to manage ethical considerations in evaluating and studying medical education.Medical education online · 2016Article
- Five Key Leadership Actions Needed to Redesign Family Medicine Residencies.Journal of graduate medical education · 2015Article
- Residency redesign: much to do.Journal of graduate medical education · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRedesign in the health care delivery system creates a need to reorganize resident education. How residency programs fund these redesign efforts is not known.
methodsFamily medicine residency program directors participating in the Preparing Personal Physicians for Practice (P(4)) project were surveyed between 2006 and 2011 on revenues and expenses associated with training redesign.
resultsA total of 6 university-based programs in the study collectively received $5,240,516 over the entire study period, compared with $4,718,943 received by 8 community-based programs. Most of the funding for both settings came from grants, which accounted for 57.8% and 86.9% of funding for each setting, respectively. Department revenue represented 3.4% of university-based support and 13.1% of community-based support. The total average revenue (all years combined) per program for university-based programs was just under $875,000, and the average was nearly $590,000 for community programs. The vast majority of funds were dedicated to salary support (64.8% in university settings versus 79.3% in community-based settings). Based on the estimated ratio of new funding relative to the annual costs of training using national data for a 3-year program with 7 residents per year, training redesign added 3% to budgets for university-based programs and about 2% to budgets for community-based programs.
conclusionsResidencies undergoing training redesign used a variety of approaches to fund these changes. The costs of innovations marginally increased the estimated costs of training. Federal and local funding sources were most common, and costs were primarily salary related. More research is needed on the costs of transforming residency training.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.