page Certification 2025: The Continuous Certification 5-Year Cycle Read Certification 2025: The Continuous Certification 5-Year Cycle
research Accounting for Social Risks in Medicare and Medicaid Payments Read Accounting for Social Risks in Medicare and Medicaid Payments
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) Achieving Health System Goals, Family Medicine Certification, and Role of Primary Care Keyword(s) Measurement, and Self-Assessment And Lifelong Learning Volume 12(2):149 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 2019 Experience of Family Physicians in Practice Transformation Networks Go to Experience of Family Physicians in Practice Transformation Networks 2012 Understanding the “sum of subtest to overall score discrepancy” on the MC-FP examination Go to Understanding the “sum of subtest to overall score discrepancy” on the MC-FP examination 2020 Rebuilding after COVID: Planning Systems of Care for the Future Go to Rebuilding after COVID: Planning Systems of Care for the Future 2013 The ABFM begins to use differential item functioning Go to The ABFM begins to use differential item functioning
Author(s) Liaw, Winston R, Bazemore, Andrew W, Ewigman, Bernard, Turin, Tanvir Chowdhury, McCorry, Daniel, Petterson, Stephen M, and Dovey, Susan M Topic(s) Achieving Health System Goals, Family Medicine Certification, and Role of Primary Care Keyword(s) Measurement, and Self-Assessment And Lifelong Learning Volume 12(2):149 Source Journal of Primary Health Care
ABFM Research Read all 2019 Experience of Family Physicians in Practice Transformation Networks Go to Experience of Family Physicians in Practice Transformation Networks 2012 Understanding the “sum of subtest to overall score discrepancy” on the MC-FP examination Go to Understanding the “sum of subtest to overall score discrepancy” on the MC-FP examination 2020 Rebuilding after COVID: Planning Systems of Care for the Future Go to Rebuilding after COVID: Planning Systems of Care for the Future 2013 The ABFM begins to use differential item functioning Go to The ABFM begins to use differential item functioning
2019 Experience of Family Physicians in Practice Transformation Networks Go to Experience of Family Physicians in Practice Transformation Networks
2012 Understanding the “sum of subtest to overall score discrepancy” on the MC-FP examination Go to Understanding the “sum of subtest to overall score discrepancy” on the MC-FP examination
2020 Rebuilding after COVID: Planning Systems of Care for the Future Go to Rebuilding after COVID: Planning Systems of Care for the Future
2013 The ABFM begins to use differential item functioning Go to The ABFM begins to use differential item functioning