ArticleOTO open
Perceptions on Academic Rhinologist Compensation Models: An ARS Survey.
Article in OTO open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the perceptions of American Rhinologic Society (ARS) members on the compensation models of academic rhinologists and their impact on clinical practice, teaching, and academic responsibilities. Study Design: Survey study. Setting: Academic rhinologists across the United States who are members of the ARS. Methods: A twenty-six-question survey was distributed to 295 ARS members. The survey collected demographic information such as years of experience, geographic location, practice setting, and consultation volume. It also explored various compensation models and their impact on compensation, patient volume, case types, and the ability to support teaching and academic responsibilities. Results: Out of 295 surveyed ARS members, 107 responded (36%), and 80 academic rhinologists were included in the final sample. Respondents varied in experience and geographic distribution. Most respondents were salaried (69%), while 63% were under relative value units (RVU)-based models, and 25% were under collections-based models. Additionally, 66% reported poor or no support for research and educational activities. Compensation models were found to influence patient volume (28%), procedure choices (14%), and academic duties, with 55% of respondents indicating reduced engagement with students. Conclusion: Although a plurality of respondents (39%) believed that salaried models are most conducive to balancing academic and clinical responsibilities, survey findings highlight a dissonance. Respondents under collections-based models were more likely to feel adequately supported (64.71%) compared to those under salaried or RVU-based models. This suggests that although many perceive salaried models as ideal for balance, collections-based models may better address financial and structural needs, emphasizing the importance of developing flexible, tailored compensation structures that align with individual and institutional goals while fostering academic productivity.
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.