• Amanda Weidner, Lars E Peterson, Arch G Mainous, and Bernard Ewigman.
• Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
• Fam Med. 2021 Feb 1; 53 (2): 98-103.

Background And ObjectivesThe 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsMost 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.ConclusionsResearch 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.

8 keywords...

hide…