research Performance Evaluation of the Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT-4) on the Family Medicine In-Training Examination Read Performance Evaluation of the Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT-4) on the Family Medicine In-Training Examination
post President’s Message: ABFM’s Unwavering Commitment to Diplomates and the Specialty Read President’s Message: ABFM’s Unwavering Commitment to Diplomates and the Specialty
post “Family Medicine Was All I Ever Wanted to Do” Dr. Phillip Wagner Read “Family Medicine Was All I Ever Wanted to Do”
Home Research Research Library Advancing bibliometric assessment of research productivity: an analysis of US Departments of Family Medicine Advancing bibliometric assessment of research productivity: an analysis of US Departments of Family Medicine 2020 Author(s) Liaw, Winston R, Bazemore, Andrew W, Ewigman, Bernard, Turin, Tanvir Chowdhury, McCorry, Daniel, Petterson, Stephen M, and Dovey, Susan M Topic(s) Family Medicine Certification, Role of Primary Care, and Achieving Health System Goals Keyword(s) Measurement, and Self-Assessment And Lifelong Learning Volume Journal of Primary Health Care Source Journal of Primary Health Care ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMeasurement of family medicine research productivity has lacked the replicable methodology needed to document progress. AIMIn this study, we compared three methods: (1) faculty-to-publications; (2) publications-to-faculty; and (3) department-reported publications. METHODSIn this cross-sectional analysis, publications in peer-reviewed, indexed journals for faculty in 13 US family medicine departments in 2015 were assessed. In the faculty-to-publications method, department websites to identify faculty and Web of Science to identify publications were used. For the publications-to-faculty method, PubMed’s author affiliation field were used to identify publications, which were linked to faculty members. In the department-reported method, chairs provided lists of faculty and their publications. For each method, descriptive statistics to compare faculty and publication counts were calculated. RESULTSOverall, 750 faculty members with 1052 unique publications, using all three methods combined as the reference standard, were identified. The department-reported method revealed 878 publications (84%), compared to 616 (59%) for the faculty-to-publications method and 412 (39%) for the publication-to-faculty method. Across all departments, 32% of faculty had any publications, and the mean number of publications per faculty was 1.4 (mean of 4.4 per faculty among those who had published). Assistant Professors, Associate Professors, Professors and Chairs accounted for 92% of all publications. DISCUSSIONOnline searches capture a fraction of publications, but also capture publications missed through self-report. The ideal methodology includes all three. Tracking publications is important for quantifying the return on our discipline’s research investment. Read More ABFM Research Read all 2021 The Need for Coaches in the Clinical World Go to The Need for Coaches in the Clinical World 2016 The Predictive Validity of the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners’ COMLEX-USA Examinations With Regard to Outcomes on American Board of Family Medicine Examinations Go to The Predictive Validity of the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners’ COMLEX-USA Examinations With Regard to Outcomes on American Board of Family Medicine Examinations 1994 A statement on the generalist physician from the American Boards of Family Practice and Internal Medicine Go to A statement on the generalist physician from the American Boards of Family Practice and Internal Medicine 1989 Classifying the content of board certification examinations Go to Classifying the content of board certification examinations
Author(s) Liaw, Winston R, Bazemore, Andrew W, Ewigman, Bernard, Turin, Tanvir Chowdhury, McCorry, Daniel, Petterson, Stephen M, and Dovey, Susan M Topic(s) Family Medicine Certification, Role of Primary Care, and Achieving Health System Goals Keyword(s) Measurement, and Self-Assessment And Lifelong Learning Volume Journal of Primary Health Care Source Journal of Primary Health Care
ABFM Research Read all 2021 The Need for Coaches in the Clinical World Go to The Need for Coaches in the Clinical World 2016 The Predictive Validity of the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners’ COMLEX-USA Examinations With Regard to Outcomes on American Board of Family Medicine Examinations Go to The Predictive Validity of the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners’ COMLEX-USA Examinations With Regard to Outcomes on American Board of Family Medicine Examinations 1994 A statement on the generalist physician from the American Boards of Family Practice and Internal Medicine Go to A statement on the generalist physician from the American Boards of Family Practice and Internal Medicine 1989 Classifying the content of board certification examinations Go to Classifying the content of board certification examinations
2016 The Predictive Validity of the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners’ COMLEX-USA Examinations With Regard to Outcomes on American Board of Family Medicine Examinations Go to The Predictive Validity of the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners’ COMLEX-USA Examinations With Regard to Outcomes on American Board of Family Medicine Examinations
1994 A statement on the generalist physician from the American Boards of Family Practice and Internal Medicine Go to A statement on the generalist physician from the American Boards of Family Practice and Internal Medicine
1989 Classifying the content of board certification examinations Go to Classifying the content of board certification examinations
