↓ Skip to main content

Institutional factors affecting participation in national faculty development programs: a nation-wide investigation of medical schools

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Institutional factors affecting participation in national faculty development programs: a nation-wide investigation of medical schools
Published in
BMC Medical Education, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-0888-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Do-Hwan Kim, Jinyoung Hwang, Seunghee Lee, Jwa-Seop Shin

Abstract

Medical schools have used faculty development programs as an essential means to improve the instruction of faculty members. Thus far, however, participating in such programs has been largely voluntary for individuals even though a certain degree of participation is required to achieve practical effectiveness. In addition, the learning behaviors of faculty members are known to be influenced by organizational contexts such as a hidden curriculum. Therefore, this study explored the organizational characteristics of medical schools affecting attendance at faculty development programs. Forty medical schools in South Korea were included in this study. In total, 1,667 faculty members attended the faculty development programs at the National Teacher Training Center for Health Personnel between 2007 and 2015. For independent variables, information on the basic characteristics and the educational states was collected from all the medical schools. Themes were identified from their educational goals and objectives by inductive content analysis. The number of nine-year cumulative attendees from medical schools ranged from 8 to 104. The basic characteristics of the medical schools had little influence on faculty development program attendance, while several themes in the educational goals and objectives, including "cooperation", "serving various societies", and "dealing with a changing future" showed a significant difference in participation. The number of full-time faculty showed a significant positive correlation when it was smaller than the median, and the proportion of alumni faculty showed a significant negative correlation when it was higher than 50%. This study adds to existing knowledge on factors affecting attendance at faculty development programs by identifying related institutional factors that influence attendance. While the variations depending on the basic characteristics were minimal, the organizational environment surrounding medical education significantly contributed to attendance. Addressing institutional as well as individual factors could contribute to improving participation by faculty members in faculty development programs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 24%
Other 3 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Professor 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 9 24%
Unknown 8 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Social Sciences 4 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 8 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 February 2017.
All research outputs
#7,913,918
of 9,128,382 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,273
of 1,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214,715
of 253,794 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#42
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,128,382 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,396 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 253,794 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.