The Next Step in Building Family Medicine Research Capacity: Finding the way from Fellowship

C. R. Jaen

doi:10.1370/afm.606

Improving Health Care Globally: A Critical Review of the Necessity of Family Medicine Research and Recommendations to Build Research Capacity

The Annals of Family Medicine ◽

10.1370/afm.194 ◽

2004 ◽

Vol 2 (suppl_2) ◽

pp. S5-S16 ◽

Cited By ~ 68

Author(s):

C. van Weel

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Family Medicine ◽

Critical Review ◽

Research Capacity ◽

Medicine Research ◽

Improving Health Care

Download Full-text

Supporting Family Medicine Research Capacity: The Critical Role and Current Contributions of US Family Medicine Organizations

Family Medicine ◽

10.22454/fammed.2019.318583 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 51 (2) ◽

pp. 120-128 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Christina M. Hester ◽

Vivian Jiang ◽

Gillian Bartlett-Esquilant ◽

Andrew Bazemore ◽

Jennifer K. Carroll ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Family Medicine ◽

Workforce Development ◽

Critical Role ◽

Research Capacity ◽

The United States ◽

Professional Organizations ◽

Medicine Research ◽

Future Success ◽

The Family ◽

Development Data

Background and Objectives: Family medicine is continuously advanced by a reinforcing research enterprise. In the United States, each national family medicine organization contributes to the discipline’s research foundations. We sought to map the unique and interorganizational roles of the eight US family medicine professional organizations participating in Family Medicine for America’s Health (FMAHealth) in supporting family medicine research. Methods: We interviewed leaders and reviewed supporting materials from organizations participating in FMAHealth. We explored existing activities, capacity, and collaboration. We identified areas of strength and opportunities for growth and synergy with respect to how the family of family medicine nurtures family medicine research. Results: The FMAHealth organizations support certain aspects of the family medicine research infrastructure. Six domains were identified through this work: showcasing scholarship, communication and dissemination, workforce development, data-driven initiatives, performing primary research, and advocacy for family medicine research. Each organization’s areas of emphasis differ, but we found substantial collaboration on initiatives across organizations, possibly attributable to the fact that many members belong to more than one organization. Conclusions: Deliberate contributions to each of the six domains identified herein will be important for the future success of family medicine research. Key opportunity areas described here include coordinated and strategic advocacy for increased funding for family medicine research, dedicated investment in training opportunities, protected effort to grow the next generation of family medicine researchers, pilot funding to build a research base for future high-impact research, and infrastructure to facilitate cross-institutional collaboration and data sharing.

Download Full-text

Attitudes and Perceptions of Research Among US Family Medicine Department Chairs

Family Medicine ◽

10.22454/fammed.2021.611648 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 53 (2) ◽

pp. 98-103

Author(s):

Amanda Weidner ◽

Lars E. Peterson ◽

Arch G. Mainous ◽

Bernard Ewigman

Keyword(s):

Family Medicine ◽

Department Chairs ◽

High Capacity ◽

Research Capacity ◽

Research Experience ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Medicine Department ◽

Medicine Research ◽

The Mean

Background and Objectives: The capacity for research within family medicine has historically been low despite its importance. The aim of this study was to learn more about the perceptions of family medicine department chairs regarding research and its role in their departments and institutions. Methods: We analyzed a 2016 cross-sectional survey with responses from 109/142 (77% response) US chairs of allopathic departments of family medicine (DFMs) regarding departmental research capacity, research experience, and perceptions of research in the department and institution. Results: Most chairs agreed that research is important (91%, n=92) and raises the prestige of the DFM (90%, n=91), though perceptions differ by chair research experience and DFM capacity for research. The mean ideal focus on research (21%, 8% SD) is greater than the actual (12%, 8% SD). Compared to the mean of all departments, those in DFMs with a high capacity for research estimated a higher actual (76% vs 26% and 7%, P<.0001) and ideal (73% vs 30% and 18%, P<.0001) departmental focus on research, as well as a higher ideal institutional focus on research (69% vs 35% and 28%, P=.001), significantly more often than chairs in moderate or minimal capacity DFMs. Those in lower capacity DFMs estimated a greater ideal research focus for their departments than they perceived their institution have. Conclusions: Research is important to chairs of DFMs. DFMs that do not currently have major research enterprises may have the will and training required of their leader to grow. With the right support and resources, these DFMs may increase their research capacity, and subsequently their research productivity to support the needs of the discipline for more family medicine research.

Download Full-text

The Current State of Research Capacity in US Family Medicine Departments

Family Medicine ◽

10.22454/fammed.2019.180310 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 51 (2) ◽

pp. 112-119 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Amanda Weidner ◽

Lars E. Peterson ◽

Arch G. Mainous ◽

Avisek Datta ◽

Bernard Ewigman

Keyword(s):

Family Medicine ◽

High Capacity ◽

Research Capacity ◽

Empirical Measure ◽

Longitudinal Assessment ◽

Empirical Measures ◽

Medicine Research ◽

Funding Sources ◽

Longitudinal Tracking ◽

The Impact

Background and Objectives: Capacity for conducting family medicine research has grown significantly since the specialty was founded. Many calls to increase this capacity have been published, but there has been no consistent, systematic, and longitudinal assessment. This survey was designed to gather baseline data with an easily replicable set of measures associated with research productivity that can guide and monitor the impact of efforts to build research capacity in US departments of family medicine (DFMs). Methods: We surveyed family medicine department chairs regarding departmental research capacity using well-established empirical measures of capacity (trained research faculty, infrastructure, research leadership, and funding) and a self-assessment. We used bivariate analyses to assess correlation between the empirical measures and the self-assessed stage of research capacity. Results: Self-assessed capacity was significantly associated with every empirical measure. High-capacity departments have more research-trained faculty, more faculty effort, utilize more research “laboratories,” have more faculty serving on federal peer-review panels, more faculty as principal investigators, devote more internal funding to research, and garner larger amounts of funding from more external funding sources than moderate or minimal-capacity departments. Conclusions: US DFMs have made great strides over the past half century in building research capacity. However, much more capacity in family medicine and primary care research is needed to produce new knowledge necessary to improve the health and health care of the nation. Periodic measurement using the simple, replicable, and valid minimum measures of this study provides an opportunity to establish longitudinal tracking of change in research capacity in US DFMs.

Download Full-text