Division of General Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2010 Nov;19(11):1995-2000. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2009.1890. Epub 2010 Sep 14.
There is increased interest in part-time (PT) positions at academic medical centers (AMCs). Faculty and institutional leaders may have concerns about the potential for academic advancement among PT faculty. Our objective was to determine the impact of working PT on measures of academic productivity.
A cross-sectional survey was mailed to PT and full-time (FT) physicians in U.S. divisions of general internal medicine. Outcome measures included publications and funding. We used multivariate analysis to identify factors associated with academic productivity.
The response rate was 63% (176 of 279); 91% of respondents were women (160 of 176). Compared with FT faculty, PT faculty were more often clinicians (Cs) or clinician-educators (CEs) (78% vs. 96%, p < 0.001), were less likely to be fellowship trained (44% vs. 23%, p < 0.001), and reported less academic support, including administrative assistance (84% vs. 67%, p = 0.008), mentoring (71% vs. 54%, p = 0.02), and research support (43% vs. 25%, p = 0.01). PT faculty spent a greater percentage of their time in patient care (55% vs. 45%, p = 0.01) and teaching (32% vs. 23%, p = 0.01) and less time in research activities (5% vs. 15%, p = 0.01) compared with FT faculty. Among Cs and CEs, FT faculty reported more publications (median 2, interquartile range [IQR 5] vs. median 0, IQR 1, p < 0.001) and funding (odds ratio [OR] 2.85, 95% confidence internal [CI] 1.36-5.98). Multivariate analyses showed that fellowship training, mentors, academic support, and number of total years worked were associated with publications and acquisition of funding. There were no associations between working PT and publications or funding.
PT faculty report fewer publications and grants. This may be related to insufficient training and academic support. AMCs wanting to facilitate the success of their PT faculty may need to expand the support available to them.
学术医疗中心（AMC）对兼职（PT）职位的兴趣日益浓厚。教职员工和机构领导可能会担心兼职教职员工在学术上的发展潜力。我们的目标是确定兼职工作对学术产出衡量标准的影响。
我们向美国普通内科分部的 PT 和全职（FT）医生邮寄了一份横断面调查。结果衡量标准包括出版物和资金。我们使用多变量分析来确定与学术生产力相关的因素。
回复率为 63%（176 名中的 176 名）；91%的受访者为女性（160 名中的 176 名）。与 FT 教职员工相比，PT 教职员工更有可能是临床医生（Cs）或临床教育者（CEs）（78% 比 96%，p < 0.001），接受过奖学金培训的可能性较小（44% 比 23%，p < 0.001），获得的学术支持较少，包括行政援助（84% 比 67%，p = 0.008）、指导（71% 比 54%，p = 0.02）和研究支持（43% 比 25%，p = 0.01）。PT 教职员工在患者护理（55%比 45%，p = 0.01）和教学（32%比 23%，p = 0.01）上花费的时间更多，而在研究活动上花费的时间更少（5%比 15%，p = 0.01）。在 Cs 和 CEs 中，FT 教职员工报告的出版物更多（中位数 2，四分位距 [IQR] 5 比中位数 0，IQR 1，p < 0.001）和资金（比值比 [OR] 2.85，95%置信区间 [CI] 1.36-5.98）。多变量分析表明，奖学金培训、导师、学术支持和工作总年限与出版物和资金的获得有关。PT 工作与出版物或资金之间没有关联。
PT 教职员工报告的出版物和资助较少。这可能与培训和学术支持不足有关。希望促进其 PT 教职员工成功的 AMC 可能需要扩大为他们提供的支持。
