ArticleAEM education and training2025
A descriptive analysis of emergency medicine residency scholarly tracks faculty workforce.
Article in AEM education and training, 2025. 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.
- A descriptive analysis of emergency medicine residency scholarly tracks faculty workforce.AEM education and training · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Scholarly tracks typically consist of longitudinal subspecialty-specific curricula and mentorship for residents. Roughly one in five emergency medicine (EM) residency programs offer scholarly tracks, allowing residents to explore a niche and develop skills to prepare them for their future careers. There is limited information on the faculty workforce that leads scholarly tracks. Our objective was to understand the workforce characteristics of EM track leaders, specifically their effort and compensation. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional survey study of EM scholarly track leaders who were identified by reviewing program websites and directly contacting program coordinators. Participants completed an electronic survey consisting of multiple-choice and completion items. We calculated descriptive statistics. Results: There were 112 of 276 (40%) track leaders who completed the survey, including 63 (57.3%) males and 47 (42.7%) females. The mean (±SD) age was 42.6 (±7.5) years. A majority (62.5%) had completed fellowship. Participants supervise a mean of 2.6 residents per year and spend a median (range) of 7.6 (4-10.7) hours per month on track activities. A total of 57.1% of participants received no compensation for their role. Nonmonetary benefits included career satisfaction (87.6%), intellectual stimulation (76.4%), departmental recognition (41.6%), and increased scholarly productivity (33.7%). Overall, 71.7% of faculty track leaders would recommend the role to a colleague. Conclusions: This study characterizes the current EM scholarly track leader workforce in terms of demographics, activities, time and effort, and compensation. It sheds light on this key educational role and on the opportunity to provide better support to faculty track leaders. These results may inform decision making of current and would-be scholarly track leaders as well as institutional leadership.
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.