ArticleCureus2024
A Volunteer Passion: A Qualitative Look at How We Measure and Reward the Work of Medical Educators.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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.
- Wellbeing and associated factors: insights from Indonesian medical teachers.Korean journal of medical education · 2026Article
- Serendipity, support and equity: a qualitative study examining career initiation in medical education.BMC medical education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Medical educators face many challenges, including the absence of defined roles, lack of standard career paths, and limited support in systems that generally prioritize research and clinical productivity over educational activities. Providers also teach to widely varying degrees. This study was designed to specifically examine the professional rewards and obstacles experienced by physicians who have dedicated significant energy and career focus to medical education. Methodology A phenomenological approach was used in this qualitative study. Purposeful sampling was utilized to identify medical educators from different institutions and geographical areas. Participants were categorized by gender and career stage. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and reflexive thematic analysis was used to develop themes across items and participants. Results Twenty-two medical educators were interviewed (11 males, 11 females), with an average age of 51 (range: 38-72) years. The average time from completion of training was 18 years (range: <1 to 41 years). Two main themes were constructed, which related to medical educators' career motivations and challenges: (1) Joy and purpose (subthemes: Interaction with learners, Impact, and Innovation) and (2) Everyone teaches (subthemes: Lack of recognition, Lack of reward, Malalignment of metrics) Conclusions The greatest source of motivation and satisfaction for medical educators is linked to the work itself; in addition to interactions with learners, educators derive pleasure from the innovation, collaboration, and systems thinking involved in their work. Importantly, participants also experience dissatisfaction, primarily due to a lack of recognition and reward, and metrics that do not consistently demonstrate their achievements. Participants provided examples of metrics that more accurately reflected the work of education; they identified clear benefits of academic promotion; and they highlighted significant challenges in the promotional system. The implementation of appropriate systems of measurement and reward is needed to better support the work of medical educators. Our aim should be not only to increase opportunities for satisfaction but also to reduce factors that cause frustration and limit advancement.
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.