ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2025
Clinician-Educator Career Advancement at a Research-Intensive Cancer Center: Faculty Perceptions and Priorities for a Promotion Pathway.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinician-educator (CE) faculty are essential to the education of trainees in cancer care, yet at research-intensive institutions advancement pathways for education-focused faculty are often unclear. Describe CE perceptions of advancement and recognition of educational work and identify priorities for a CE promotion pathway at a large cancer center. Anonymous faculty survey (January 2023) with analyses restricted to clinical faculty who self-identified as CEs or were unsure of their CE status. Descriptive statistics were reported; exploratory Kruskal-Wallis tests compared responses by rank and years in rank. One open-ended item on barriers underwent inductive content analysis by two coders. IRB approved (2022 - 1006). Of 208 respondents, 142 were clinical faculty; 103 (72.5%) identified as CEs or were unsure of their CE status. Nearly half perceived no clear advancement path (49/103, 47.6%), while 27/103 (26.2%) perceived a clear path. Most reported educational effort was undervalued relative to research for academic recognition (72/103, 69.9%) and promotion impact (67/103, 64.7%). A majority agreed that establishing a CE pathway would aid advancement (60/103, 57.9%). Highest-priority elements were transparent promotion criteria (64/103, 62.1%), protected time for education (64/103, 62.1%), and tools to document and quantify educational effort (60/103, 58.3%). CE faculty at a research-intensive center perceived unclear advancement and lower recognition of educational work. Institutions seeking to strengthen cancer education should implement transparent CE-specific criteria, allocate protected education time, and adopt systems that document educational contributions.
Identifiers
41389177What 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.