ArticleBMC medical education2025
Interventions designed to increase scholarly activity and achieve promotion among primarily junior clinical faculty in the United States: a scoping review.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFor many U.S. academic physicians, direct patient care is the primary focus of daily work and the most important professional responsibility. Concurrently, some degree of scholarly activity is often required for career advancement. Junior clinical faculty often face challenges that limit their success in this area such as heavy clinical workloads or other time constraints, a lack of personal expertise or experience, mentorship, and institutional infrastructure. Support systems and faculty development interventions may mitigate these challenges and contribute to increased academic productivity and promotion. The objective of this study was to perform a scoping review of literature on strategies which increase scholarly activity among junior clinical faculty in the United States to determine the extent to which this topic has been scientifically investigated, the form of the employed strategies for supporting junior clinical faculty scholarly activity, the types of scholarly activity measured, and the research methods used.
methodsAn online search of PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, ERIC and APA PsycINFO databases was conducted and supplemented by a manual search of references and citations. Articles published between January 1, 2012, and February 7, 2025, that described faculty development interventions designed to increase scholarly productivity of junior clinical faculty in the United States were included. We employed a structured data extraction algorithm, extracted data in dyads, and resolved any inconsistencies using a third extractor. Included publications were categorized by the primary intervention strategy they employed.
resultsEighteen publications are included in this scoping review. The most common primary strategies for supporting scholarly activity were peer-mentoring (5/18, 28%) and traditional mentoring (5/18, 28%). Other strategies included grants and funding (4/18, 22%), faculty development and training (2/18, 11%), and protected time (1/18, 6%). Two of the 18 publications included a control group.
conclusionsMentoring was the most common strategy to support scholarly activity of junior clinical faculty followed by faculty development programs. Scholarly activity is often measured by publications, grant funding, and presentations. A major gap in the current literature is the absence of any high-quality research demonstrating a beneficial effect on the scholarly activity of junior clinical faculty.
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.