ArticleMedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources2024
Implementing a Holistic Review Toolkit for Faculty Recruitment and Retention.
Article in MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: A diverse workforce improves health care, educational outcomes, and research agendas. Currently, faculty from historically excluded groups remain underrepresented in academic medicine. Resources are needed in academic medical centers for those charged with recruiting and retaining a diverse and talented workforce. Methods: Informed by the successful use of holistic review in medical student admissions, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) developed and piloted a toolkit for use in faculty recruitment and retention at five academic medical centers. Institutions led toolkit-guided holistic review workshops ranging from 2.5 to 3 hours in duration for leaders and faculty to identify and prioritize selection criteria used to modify faculty recruitment and retention materials and processes. AAMC surveys at pilot initiation and at two time points during implementation assessed satisfaction with and perceptions of the toolkit. Results: At the first survey time point, the average toolkit rating across five institutions ranged from 3.2 to 4.4 (out of a maximum of 5.0) for helpfulness and from 3.5 to 4.9 for ease of use. At the second survey time point, the helpfulness of the tools received average ratings of 3.0-4.8. In respondents' qualitative comments, we identified varying strategies for implementation and few barriers to implementation other than reluctance of some faculty to use scripted tools and concerns about anonymity in the exit interviews. Discussion: The toolkit was well received and easy to implement. It will be important to study the use of these materials across other institutions, with attention to their impact on faculty diversity.
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.