M.W. Cameron is a staff editor, Academic Medicine and MedEdPORTAL , Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2847-8802 .
L.N. Crowther is a library specialist, Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3302-8651 .
Acad Med. 2023 Jan 1;98(1):112-122. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000004896. Epub 2022 Sep 20.
Medical educators are expected to produce educational scholarship, which can lead to career advancement and promotion. Institutions have developed author development programs, which vary in duration, instructional approach, and effectiveness. However, no summation of the evidence exists for academic medicine leaders to use as guidance for building similar programs. This scoping review characterizes faculty development programs that support educational scholarship and author development in academic medicine.
The authors searched PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and ProQuest (Healthcare Administration Database and Social Science Premium Collection) for articles published from inception to June 14, 2021. Articles that described formal instruction on scholarly writing for publishing were included. Data were analyzed by program participation, structure, content delivery, and outcomes.
Of 923 articles identified, 20 met inclusion criteria. The included studies covered 18 unique programs of which 1 was sponsored jointly by a university and professional society, 5 by professional societies, 5 by university or medical school organizations, and 7 by medical departments. Nine programs relied at least in part on volunteers. Instructional approaches included didactics (7 programs) and mentoring (5 programs) but mostly featured group-based work (11 programs). Expectations for participants ranged from participation to manuscript submission. The main funding sources were grants (8 programs) and internal funds (7 programs) from the sponsoring institution. Only 4 programs reported participation fees. The impact of these programs included scholarly work products, other measures of career advancement, and participant perceptions.
Author development programs require resource investment and a culture that values educational scholarship. Workshops, 1-on-1 mentoring, and peer writing groups are cornerstones of the experiential learning approach needed to build scholarship skills and can pay dividends in supporting the academic mission in medicine. These findings may benefit leaders in academic medicine who want to develop evidence-based programs in author development.
医学教育工作者需要产出教育学术成果，这有助于其职业发展和晋升。各机构已开发出作者发展项目，这些项目在持续时间、教学方法和效果上各有不同。然而，目前还没有为学术医学领导者提供综合证据，以作为他们建立类似项目的指导。本研究通过范围综述，明确支持学术医学教育学术成果和作者发展的教师发展项目。
作者通过检索 PubMed、Scopus、Google Scholar 和 ProQuest（Healthcare Administration Database 和 Social Science Premium Collection），获取自成立至 2021 年 6 月 14 日发表的文章。纳入标准为描述学术写作正式指导以发表文章的文章。通过项目参与、结构、内容交付和结果对数据进行分析。
在 923 篇文章中，有 20 篇符合纳入标准。这些研究涵盖了 18 个独特的项目，其中 1 个项目由大学和专业协会联合赞助，5 个项目由专业协会赞助，5 个项目由大学或医学院组织赞助，7 个项目由医学系赞助。9 个项目至少部分依赖志愿者。教学方法包括讲座（7 个项目）和指导（5 个项目），但大多以小组为基础（11 个项目）。对参与者的期望从参与到提交手稿不等。主要资金来源是赠款（8 个项目）和赞助机构的内部资金（7 个项目）。只有 4 个项目报告了参与费用。这些项目的影响包括学术工作成果、其他职业发展衡量标准和参与者的看法。
作者发展项目需要资源投入和重视教育学术的文化。工作坊、1 对 1 指导和同行写作小组是建立学术技能的体验式学习方法的基石，可以支持医学学术使命，并带来回报。这些发现可能有助于学术医学领域的领导者开发基于证据的作者发展项目。
