Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42039676›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development

The Development of a Faculty Development Program Framework for Medical Education.

Lise McCoy, Sebastian R Diaz, S Dennis Baker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Lise McCoyDepartment of Academic Affairs, Department of Clinical Medicine, New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine, New York, NY, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4788-861X
Sebastian R DiazCollege of Graduate Studies, Northeast Ohio Medical University, College of Medicine, Rootstown, OH, USA.
S Dennis BakerDepartment of Family Medicine and Rural Health, Florida State University College of Medicine, Tallahassee, FL, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6381-0970

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Faculty development is vital for sustaining and advancing medical education. While accreditation standards require US medical schools to offer faculty development, existing frameworks lack the specificity to guide program planning, implementation, and evaluation across all key domains-and none have been developed through a systematic, consensus-based process with national medical education leaders. To address this gap, authors launched a pilot initiative to derive a consensus-based framework, entitled the Medical Education Faculty Development Program Framework (FDPF), for undergraduate medical education. Methods: Over the course of 2021 to 2024, faculty development experts from 3 medical schools conducted a sequential, mixed-methods study in 7 phases to develop the FDPF. Phases included literature and expert conceptual reviews to generate an initial draft, followed by 4 iterative rounds of focus groups and semi-structured interviews with faculty development leaders from national medical education organizations to refine the framework. A short form with 27 quality indicators was then piloted at 2 US medical education conferences in 2023 with a combined sample of 55 faculty development participants. Results: Focus group and conference participants endorsed the FDPF as potentially valuable for onboarding new faculty development professionals and for self-assessment of institutional programs or accreditation preparation. Across both pilot administrations of the short form, participants reported the highest agreement with quality indicators related to tracking faculty development participation and offering sessions on core teaching topics and learning science. Agreement was lower for indicators related to program alignment with teaching standards, access to faculty performance metrics, preceptor training programs, and support for instructional design. Conclusions: Iterative expert feedback through focus groups and leader interviews contributed to 2 distinct final products: (1) a concise short form, "27 Quality Indicators of Faculty Development Programs," designed for rapid self-assessment, and (2) a comprehensive FDPF checklist designed for systematic program benchmarking, design, and enhancement. Together, these tools offer faculty development professionals a systematic, consensus-based resource for driving continuous improvement and adaptability in medical education.

Indexed as

faculty developmentprogram qualityundergraduate medical education

Identifiers

PMID42039676
PMCPMC13103497

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.