Association of Departments of Family Medicine, Leawood, KS.
and University of Washington Family Medicine Residency Network, Department of Family Medicine.
Fam Med. 2022 Jan;54(1):16-23. doi: 10.22454/FamMed.2022.465116.
Despite the prevalence of published opinions about the use of professional academic writers to help disseminate the results of clinical research, particularly opinions about the use of ghost writers, very little information has been published on the possible roles for professional writers within academic medical departments or the mechanisms by which these departments can hire and compensate such writers. To begin addressing this lack of information, the Association of Departments of Family Medicine hosted an online discussion and a subsequent webinar in which we obtained input from three departments of family medicine in the United States regarding their use of academic writers. This discussion revealed three basic models by which academic writers have benefitted these departments: (1) grant writing support, (2) research and academic support for clinical faculty, and (3) departmental communication support. Drawing on specific examples from these institutions, the purpose of this paper is to describe the key support activities, advantages, disadvantages, and funding opportunities for each model for other departments to consider and adapt.
尽管已经有很多关于使用专业学术作者来帮助传播临床研究结果的意见(尤其是关于使用 ghost writer 的意见),但是关于学术医学部门内部专业作者的可能角色,以及这些部门聘请和补偿这些作者的机制,却很少有信息被公布。为了开始解决这个信息缺乏的问题,家庭医学部门协会组织了一次在线讨论和随后的网络研讨会,我们从美国的三个家庭医学部门获得了关于他们使用学术作者的意见。这次讨论揭示了学术作者使这些部门受益的三种基本模式:(1)资助申请支持,(2)为临床教师提供研究和学术支持,以及(3)部门沟通支持。本文通过从这些机构中抽取的具体例子,旨在为其他部门考虑和改编每个模式的关键支持活动、优点、缺点和资金机会提供描述。