Introduction: Physician faculty have increasingly been appointed to nontenure track positions, which provide limited support for scholarly activity. We evaluated how a centralized departmental research group affected the scholarly productivity of faculty on and off the tenure track.
Methods: A research team providing both mentorship and logistical study support was implemented in 2018. We identified a pre-intervention cohort of physician faculty employed in July 2016, and a postintervention cohort, employed in July 2018. A publication search was conducted for these cohorts in the period 2017 to 2018 and 2019 to 2020, respectively.
Results: Seventy-five faculty were included in the analysis, with approximately two-thirds appointed on the clinical (nontenure) track. In the pre-intervention cohort (n = 59), 15 faculty (25%) had at least one publication in the period 2017 to 2018. In the postintervention cohort (n = 59), 33 faculty (56%) published at least one article in the period 2019 to 2020 (P = .001). Multivariable random-effects regression analysis confirmed that postintervention, odds of publishing in a given year increased for both clinical-track and tenure-track faculty.
Conclusion: Both clinical and tenure-track faculty contribute to the academic mission at medical schools, yet scholarly activity is supported and rewarded for tenure-track faculty more often than for clinical-track faculty. Our centralized research team successfully fostered scholarly activity among both clinical-track and tenure-track faculty.
Copyright © 2022 The Alliance for Continuing Education in the Health Professions, the Association for Hospital Medical Education, and the Society for Academic Continuing Medical Education.