Suppr超能文献

约翰·霍普金斯大学医学院教员学术晋升与职业发展路径调查结果。

Results of an academic promotion and career path survey of faculty at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

作者信息

Thomas Patricia A, Diener-West Marie, Canto Marcia I, Martin Don R, Post Wendy S, Streiff Michael B

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.

出版信息

Acad Med. 2004 Mar;79(3):258-64. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200403000-00013.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Clinician-educator faculty are increasing in numbers in academic medical centers, but their academic advancement is slower than that of research faculty. The authors sought to quantify the magnitude of this difference in career advancement and to explore the characteristics of faculty that might explain the difference.

METHOD

In 1999, a questionnaire was administered to all MD faculty at the rank of instructor and above (259) in the Department of Medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

RESULTS

A total of 180 (69%) faculty returned questionnaires. Of these, 178 identified with one of four career paths: basic researcher (46), clinical researcher (69), academic clinician (38), or teacher-clinician (25). Career path did not differ by age, gender, rank, years on faculty, hours worked per week, family responsibility, or global work satisfaction. After adjusting for age, gender, time at rank, and work satisfaction, the odds of being at a higher rank were 85% less for academic clinicians (odds ratio,.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.40) and 69% less for teacher-clinicians (odds ratio,.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.88) than for basic researchers. Clinical researchers did not differ from basic researchers in the likelihood of being at higher rank. Similarly, compared with basic research faculty, the adjusted odds of being more satisfied with progress towards academic promotion were 92% lower for academic clinicians and 87% lower for teacher-clinicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinician-educator faculty were less likely to be at higher rank at this institution than were faculty in research paths. Differences in rank may be explained by lower rank at hire for faculty in these career paths, time available for scholarly activities, or other resources available to support scholarship. Retaining clinician-educators will require further exploration of barriers to promotion inherent to these career paths and methods of modifying these barriers.

摘要

目的

临床教师在学术医疗中心的数量不断增加,但他们的学术晋升速度比科研教师慢。作者试图量化职业晋升中这种差异的程度,并探索可能解释这种差异的教师特征。

方法

1999年,对约翰霍普金斯大学医学院内科所有讲师及以上职级的医学博士教师(共259人)进行了问卷调查。

结果

共有180名(69%)教师返回了问卷。其中,178人确定为四种职业道路之一:基础研究人员(46人)、临床研究人员(69人)、学术临床医生(38人)或教师临床医生(25人)。职业道路在年龄、性别、职级、任教年限、每周工作时长、家庭责任或总体工作满意度方面没有差异。在对年龄、性别、职级时间和工作满意度进行调整后,学术临床医生处于较高职级的几率比基础研究人员低85%(优势比为0.15;95%置信区间为0.06 - 0.40),教师临床医生低69%(优势比为0.31;95%置信区间为0.11 - 0.88)。临床研究人员在处于较高职级的可能性方面与基础研究人员没有差异。同样,与基础研究教师相比,学术临床医生对学术晋升进展更满意的调整后几率低92%,教师临床医生低87%。

结论

在该机构中,临床教师比科研道路上的教师处于较高职级的可能性更小。职级差异可能是由于这些职业道路上的教师入职时职级较低、可用于学术活动的时间或支持学术研究的其他资源所致。留住临床教师需要进一步探索这些职业道路固有的晋升障碍以及修改这些障碍的方法。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验