ArticleAnnals of family medicine2025
Impact of Financial Incentives and Department Size on Scholarly Activity Output.
Article in Annals of family medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrection.2025
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFamily medicine research is essential to improving population health. It has the unique ability to answer questions about health care outcomes and use those insights to impact communities. Increasing research capacity continues to be a challenge; however, recent literature has touted the success of incentivization in several academic medicine specialties. We used the 2022 CERA annual Family Medicine Department Chair survey to characterize the amount and type of scholarly activities by institutional financial incentive status (yes or no) and type (flat vs variable amount), to investigate the relationship between financial incentives and scholarly output.
methodsQuestions included targeted demographic variables, institutional incentives, and family medicine department scholarly output. Summary statistics and logistical regression analyses were conducted.
resultsThe overall survey response rate was 47.1% (106/225). Respondents reported financial incentives were allowed at 41 (38.7%) of 106 institutions. Of these, 19 (17.9%) reported clinical faculty received cash-based incentives, while 34 (32.1%) received noncash-based incentives for engaging in scholarly activity. The main barriers to offering financial incentives were institutional budget constraints and department culture or tradition. Financial incentives were not statistically associated with scholarly output; however, faculty size was statistically significant for giving more than 6 presentations (adjusted odds ratio = 0.20; 95% CI, 0.054-0.739).
conclusionsInstitutions aiming to increase their family medicine department scholarly productivity might benefit from focusing resources on increasing their faculty size such as adding consultants, statistical analysts, grant writers, or other research staff.
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.