ArticleFamily medicine2023
Assessment of a Recognition Program in an Academic Family Medicine Department.
Article in Family medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions to improve faculty well-being in medical schools: a scoping review.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Low E-visibility of embryologists on fertility clinic websites: a web-based cross-sectional study.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesBurnout is prevalent among clinicians and faculty. We sought to understand the impact of a recognition program designed to reduce burnout and affect engagement and job satisfaction in a large academic family medicine department.
methodsA recognition program was created in which three clinicians and faculty from the department were randomly selected each month to be recognized ("awardees"). Each awardee was asked to honor a person who had supported them (a "hidden hero" [HH]). Clinicians and faculty not recognized or selected as an HH were considered "bystanders." Interviews were completed with 12 awardees, 12 HHs, and 12 bystanders for a total of 36 interviews. We used content analysis to qualitatively evaluate the program.
resultsAssessment of the "We Are" Recognition Program resulted in the categories of impact (subcategories: process positives, process negatives, and fairness of program) and HHs (subcategories: teamwork and awareness of the program). We conducted interviews on a rolling basis and made iterative changes to the program based on feedback.
conclusionsThis recognition program helped create a sense of value for clinicians and faculty in a large, geographically dispersed department. It represents a model that would be easy to replicate, requires no special training or significant financial investment, and can be implemented in a virtual format.
Indexed as
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.