ArticleFamily medicine2026
Prioritizing Research Metrics in Family Medicine: A CERA Study of Department Chairs.
Article in Family medicine, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesDespite wide agreement on the importance of building research capacity to the specialty of family medicine, no standard exists for defining or measuring that growth. Previous work to address this gap yielded the Productivity and Capacity Evaluation in Research (PACER) Tool, a list of quantitative research metrics grouped into seven categories. We surveyed family medicine department chairs to understand which categories of PACER metrics they considered most valuable in evaluating their department's research capacity. We also aimed to compare reported research capacity in 2024 with answers given by family medicine department chairs in 2021.
methodsA cross-sectional survey administered through the Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance (CERA) was used to gather information from family medicine department chairs in the United States and Canada. One question asked chairs to evaluate their department's research capacity, and nine questions assessed the relative importance of the seven PACER Tool categories.
resultsA total of 218 surveys were delivered, with 111 (50.9%) completed. Survey results demonstrated that program chairs determined funding to be the most impactful category. We found no clear trend in the second most important or least important categories. Results also showed no statistically significant change in reported research capacity between 2021 and 2024.
conclusionsFunding emerged as the category of research metrics viewed as most important by the greatest number of family medicine department chairs. Although other categories of metrics also were viewed as important, this survey demonstrated no clear pattern of their relative importance in this population.
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.