SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Mapping faculty development needs in medical education: a bibliometric analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in 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: Faculty development is central to sustaining and improving the quality of medical education; however, the cumulative scholarly landscape-its growth trajectories, geographic concentration, thematic architecture, and methodological foundations-has not been systematically mapped. This bibliometric analysis aims to characterize the intellectual structure of faculty development needs assessment research in medical education over a 20-year period (2005-2025) and to identify priority development needs consistently reported by faculty across diverse institutional contexts. Methods: Bibliometric analysis was conducted using Biblioshiny (Bibliometrix v5.1.0, R v4.4.1) on a deduplicated dataset from Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed. Analyses included publication trends, geographic distribution, citation patterns, keyword co-occurrence networks, thematic mapping, and international collaboration networks. Findings were complemented by a narrative synthesis of empirical studies to triangulate faculty development priorities across contexts. Results: Annual publication output increased eightfold, from 3 publications in 2005 to 24 in 2025, with a pronounced acceleration after 2018. Research output was concentrated in high-income countries, with the United States accounting for 717 citations compared to 69 (Australia) and 67 (Canada). Needs assessment was the most prevalent research theme (9% of all keywords), followed by staff development (6%) and curriculum (5%). Across diverse geographic and institutional settings, consistently reported faculty development priorities included teaching skills for large and small groups, assessment and feedback competencies, curriculum development, clinical supervision, and educational scholarship. The field relies predominantly on cross-sectional surveys and self-reported gap analyses; evaluation outcomes are largely restricted to Kirkpatrick Level 1 measures, with few studies examining behavioral change or institutional impact. Conclusion: Faculty development needs assessment research has grown substantially but remains geographically concentrated and methodologically limited. The consistency of priority needs across contexts highlights universal challenges in medical education, while subgroup variation underscores the importance of targeted, contextually responsive programming. Future research should adopt longitudinal evaluation designs, expand capacity in under-represented regions, and move beyond self-report to measure authentic educational impact.
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.