ArticleCureus2025
Understanding What Emergency Medicine (EM) Faculty Want: Preferences for Content and Delivery of Faculty-Focused Departmental Education.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Variability and Innovation in Faculty Development Models in Emergency Medicine.AEM education and training · 2026Review
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
Background Methods for ongoing faculty education in academic emergency medicine (EM) have evolved over the years. In addition to traditional in-person lectures or grand rounds, education may be supplemented by online or asynchronous content. The preferences of EM physicians for faculty education content and format are not well understood. We sought to determine barriers and facilitating factors for EM faculty to participate in educational sessions and/or content, as well as faculty preferences on subject matter, content delivery methods, and personnel. Methods We performed a cross-sectional survey of EM faculty physicians from 18 US academic medical centers. Survey invitations were delivered by a site representative at each institution using a Qualtrics survey instrument (Qualtrics, Provo, US). Quantitative data were analyzed with descriptive statistics via percentiles. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results A total of 230 individuals from 18 academic departments across the US responded to the survey. Clinical experience ranged from 0-5 years (25%) to 21+ years (20%). Lectures were the most preferred format, cited by 90% of participants, followed by hands-on sessions (66%), interactive sessions (47%), and journal clubs (46%). A hybrid format (virtual + in-person) was the most desired delivery format as well as the most common delivery method. Faculty considered clinical duties as the greatest barrier to attending grand rounds (55%), followed by conflicts with appointments/meetings (51%) and uninteresting topics or content (17%). Faculty preferred more content on procedural skills or hands-on training, critical care/resuscitation, and academic development/teaching techniques. Conclusions Faculty development opportunities are important for physicians to maintain and grow their skills and knowledge. However, there are many barriers and competing priorities to attendance. Faculty were most motivated to attend based on the topic and the speaker's skill and reputation. They also valued hybrid and asynchronous options to allow attendance around other clinical and academic duties. Organizers of grand rounds sessions should consider their faculty's particular needs, interests, and motivations to plan more valuable programming and maximize engagement.
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.