ArticleFamily medicine2026
Predicting Engagement of Applicants in the Leadership Through Scholarship Fellowship: A Qualitative Analysis.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThe Society of Teachers of Family Medicine sponsored the Leadership Through Scholarship Fellowship (LTSF) to address the minority tax and help underrepresented in medicine faculty navigate the complex academic environment and succeed and thrive in academic family medicine. This paper aims to answer, "What factors evident in the LTSF application were associated with a high hunger for success in the fellowship?"
methodsLTSF faculty reviewed successful fellow applications in 2021 through 2023 (N = 23), ranking fellows using a rubric to divide them into two groups based on hunger for success in academic medicine. Qualitative researchers analyzed the free-response portions of the fellows' applications and compared the two groups using constant-comparison analysis.
resultsVery hungry fellows had more time in rank (1.5 years vs 1 year) and longer at their institution (3.25 years vs 1 year). Additionally, very hungry fellows identified themes of shared leadership, advocacy, systemic issues, and self-starting. All fellows identified mentorship, scholarship, and lack of supported time. Hungry fellows uniquely identified the theme of support systems.
conclusionsFellows who were MDs and discussed leadership, advocacy, systemic issues, and self-starting were associated with being very hungry. This study contributes to the literature by being among the first to use application data and faculty rankings to identify themes associated with high 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.