View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Pulling Back the Curtain: Exploring Norms and Practices among a Sample of Anatomy-Related Departments in U.S. Medical Schools

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Pulling Back the Curtain: Exploring Norms and Practices among a Sample of Anatomy-Related Departments in U.S. Medical Schools
Language: English
Authors: Griffith, MacKenzie (ORCID 0000-0003-1355-8970), Ferrigno, Christopher (ORCID 0000-0001-5173-6753), Wilson, Adam B. (ORCID 0000-0002-1221-5602)
Source: Anatomical Sciences Education. Sep-Oct 2023 16(5):969-978.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Medical Schools, Educational Practices, Anatomy, Teacher Researchers, Faculty Workload, Compensation (Remuneration), Medical Education, Faculty College Relationship, Medical School Faculty
DOI: 10.1002/ase.2299
ISSN: 1935-9772
1935-9780
Abstract: Anatomy-related departments have access to comparative research productivity data (e.g., Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research), yet no datasets exist for comparing departments' general practices pertinent to education-focused faculty. Practice trends in anatomy-related departments across U.S. medical schools were explored by surveying departmental leaders. The survey inquired about: (i) faculty time allocations, (ii) anatomy teaching services, (iii) faculty labor distribution models, and (iv) faculty compensation practices. A nationally representative sample of 35 departments (of 194) responded to the survey. On average, anatomy educators are allotted 24% (median = 15%) protected time for research, irrespective of funding, 62% for teaching and course administration (median = 68%), 12% for service, and 2% for administration. Forty-four percent (15 of 34) of departments taught at least five different student populations, often across multiple colleges. Many departments (65%; 11 of 17) applied formulaic methods for determining faculty workloads, often as a function of course credits or contact hours. Average base salaries for assistant and associate professors reported by this survey were consistent (p = 0.056) with national means (i.e., Association of American Medical Colleges Annual Faculty Salary Report). Merit-based increases and bonuses averaged 5% and 10% of faculty's salaries, respectively, when awarded. Cost-of-living increases averaged 3%. Overall, departments' workload and compensation practices vary widely, likely a consequence of different institutional cultures, locations, needs, and financial priorities. This sample dataset allows anatomy-related departments to compare and reflect upon their practices and competitiveness in recruiting and retaining faculty.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1391067
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHQHVEXpkGIKUN2kLQ89H_RAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDJEhbfz0kAvkLlKi7AIBEICBmjF31a_nuLNoPVnSEaUnsRZ8jbAjx4pGjiCa9mLjNegsdJSFYAUJJzxaRiu64hkGai8V-fKsxQySfbuNTBoXHAOiO3tvVwgK13o8x-vbw93DOE5V36NuKMXgN6OMs72XUhTiDTFlBfJrlOCCwBt6ppr-e_G0-5IM33vf-GyxfecHa4YQ0Dnu46xg-u5PI5_nU8eS1p8eqbuBVV4=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0171369487;[8z8k]01sep.23;2023Sep06.06:34;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0171369487-1">Pulling back the curtain: Exploring norms and practices among a sample of anatomy‐related departments in U.S. medical schools </title> <p>Anatomy‐related departments have access to comparative research productivity data (e.g., Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research), yet no datasets exist for comparing departments' general practices pertinent to education‐focused faculty. Practice trends in anatomy‐related departments across U.S. medical schools were explored by surveying departmental leaders. The survey inquired about: (i) faculty time allocations, (ii) anatomy teaching services, (iii) faculty labor distribution models, and (iv) faculty compensation practices. A nationally representative sample of 35 departments (of 194) responded to the survey. On average, anatomy educators are allotted 24% (median = 15%) protected time for research, irrespective of funding, 62% for teaching and course administration (median = 68%), 12% for service, and 2% for administration. Forty‐four percent (15 of 34) of departments taught at least five different student populations, often across multiple colleges. Many departments (65%; 11 of 17) applied formulaic methods for determining faculty workloads, often as a function of course credits or contact hours. Average base salaries for assistant and associate professors reported by this survey were consistent (p ≥ 0.056) with national means (i.e., Association of American Medical Colleges Annual Faculty Salary Report). Merit‐based increases and bonuses averaged 5% and 10% of faculty's salaries, respectively, when awarded. Cost‐of‐living increases averaged 3%. Overall, departments' workload and compensation practices vary widely, likely a consequence of different institutional cultures, locations, needs, and financial priorities. This sample dataset allows anatomy‐related departments to compare and reflect upon their practices and competitiveness in recruiting and retaining faculty.</p> <p>Keywords: anatomy departments; faculty workload; salary increases</p> <hd id="AN0171369487-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Within medical education, aggregated datasets on topics such as faculty compensation, faculty retention, student perceptions, and trends in educational practices help to establish useful national benchmarks. These datasets are often used diagnostically by programs and institutions as comparative baselines for monitoring performance, perceptions, and organizational practices and to determine actionable changes for fostering evidence‐based improvements. However, in many instances, department‐level outcomes are often less accessible, and institutional/program‐level data lack sufficient granularity for relevant use by department leaders. This raises the question, "Can more be done to help anatomy faculty and department leaders develop a shared understanding of departmental practices across institutions?"</p> <p>While anatomy‐related departments have access to comparative research productivity data (e.g., Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research) (Roskoski & Parslow, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref1">21</reflink>]), there are no corresponding annually maintained datasets for comparing departments' demographics, educational offerings, or general practice models. In the absence of such datasets, it becomes challenging for faculty and administrators to identify shortcomings and to subsequently advocate for needed changes. For example, if administrators can leverage the use of national outcomes, it may be easier to justify protected research time for unfunded, yet highly productive, medical education researchers. Given the benefits of national datasets and the need for departments to competitively attract the best faculty, a survey of anatomy‐related departments could better inform faculty and equip department leaders to become champions for bolstering and modernizing practices within the profession.</p> <hd id="AN0171369487-3">Impact of national datasets</hd> <p>Datasets that are sponsored and generated by national organizations are esteemed for being robust and useful resources for medical institutions. One example is the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Faculty Roster, which collects faculty employment status and demographic information from across 155 U.S. allopathic medical schools. These data have culminated in the U.S. Medical School Full‐time Faculty Attrition report and spurred research that has led to institutional recommendations for supporting increased recruitment, promotion, and mentorship efforts for minority faculty who are at risk for higher attrition (Guevara et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref2">11</reflink>]). Without this type of national dataset, such impactful recommendations and changes may never have been possible.</p> <hd id="AN0171369487-4">National anatomy‐focused datasets</hd> <p>Within the field of anatomy, in 2003, the American Association for Anatomy (AAA) surveyed anatomy department chairpersons to capture benchmarking data for comparing departmental funding, infrastructure support, and salaries across U.S. and Canadian medical institutions (Pendleton, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref3">18</reflink>]). With a survey completion rate of 50.5%, this survey revealed an average of 1.4 unfilled faculty positions across institutions and that many individuals trained in anatomy chose not to teach anatomy for a variety of reasons (Pendleton, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref4">18</reflink>]). No follow‐up study of this scale or focus has been administered to anatomy‐related departments since. While at least one recent survey has queried departments on the anatomy educator shortage (Wilson et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref5">31</reflink>]), it did not provide a broader update of current departmental trends or practices.</p> <hd id="AN0171369487-5">Study purpose</hd> <p>The present work conducts an updated and expanded study of practices across anatomy‐related departments in U.S. medical schools. Specifically, this work explores: (i) faculty time allocations, (ii) faculty labor distribution models, (iii) anatomy teaching services offered, and (iv) faculty compensation practices pertaining to merit/cost‐of‐living increases and bonuses. In light of newer reports emphasizing the growing anatomy educator shortage (Wilson et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref6">31</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref7">30</reflink>]; Edwards et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref8">8</reflink>]), it is timely for anatomy‐related departments across the U.S. and internationally to carefully evaluate their workload practices and competitiveness for attracting well‐qualified candidates to open faculty positions. If leaders are better informed regarding national departmental trends, over time, they may be able to reduce their direct and hidden costs associated with time intensive operations, such as high faculty turnover and recruitment (Schloss et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref9">23</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0171369487-6">METHODS</hd> <p>The study's survey was vetted, approved, and sponsored by the Association of Anatomy, Cell Biology, and Neurobiology Chairpersons (AACBNC). This study was deemed exempt by the Rush University Institutional Review Board, as it did not meet the definition of human subjects research.</p> <hd id="AN0171369487-7">Study population</hd> <p>This study surveyed chairpersons, vice‐chairpersons, department heads, and directors of anatomy‐related departments housed within U.S. allopathic and osteopathic medical schools. To generate an inclusive list of chairpersons (Figure 1), the AACBNC provided the names and contact information of its current members. The accuracy of this information was verified through department website searches. Additionally, a roster of all U.S. medical schools was sourced from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine (AACOM) to identify schools where the AACBNC had no chairperson of record. Departments' and faculty's institutional profiles were searched to fill missing data gaps.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/8Z8K/01sep23/ase2299-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ase2299-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Flow diagram for identifying and surveying department leaders. AACBNC, Association of Anatomy, Cell Biology, and Neurobiology Chairpersons; AACOM, American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine; AAMC, Association of American Medical Colleges." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0171369487-9">Survey features</hd> <p>The 27‐item survey included categorical (non‐Likert), sliding analog scale, and free response questions. To better understand trends across anatomy‐related departments, this survey inquired about: (i) faculty time allocations, (ii) the breadth of anatomy teaching services offered by departments, (iii) labor distribution models for determining faculty workloads, and (iv) faculty compensation practices pertaining to merit/cost‐of‐living increases and bonuses. The survey items are presented in the results tables.</p> <p>The survey was finalized after piloting it with one chairperson and having it vetted and approved by the AACBNC prior to administration. The Qualtrics (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) survey was disseminated via email to eligible department leaders in August 2022 and was available for 10 weeks. A maximum of two survey reminders were sent, as needed. The email and survey instructions indicated that participation was completely voluntary, and no incentives were offered.</p> <hd id="AN0171369487-10">Data analysis</hd> <p>Survey data were analyzed in Microsoft Excel (2016) to generate frequencies and descriptive statistics. Statistical analyses were conducted in SPSS (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp). A one‐sample chi‐square analysis proportionally compared responding schools' demographics to national demographics to test the representativeness of the responding sample. A bivariate linear regression tested the relationship between faculty salaries across each rank and cost‐of‐living indices. U.S. cost‐of‐living indices were sourced from a publicly available website (Mark, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref10">16</reflink>]). A one‐sample <emph>T</emph>‐test was performed as a validity check to compare the survey's salary outcomes to an external national dataset (i.e., AAMC 2020–2021 Faculty Salary Report). Responses to open‐ended questions were deductively analyzed for recurring keywords and phrases (e.g., "FTE", "balanced workload", "contact hours") to identify major categories related to labor distribution models and the use of key terms. Reported keywords identified by the first author were reviewed and verified by the last author. Data regarding these categories are reported as narrative summaries and frequencies.</p> <hd id="AN0171369487-11">RESULTS</hd> <p>A total of 35 departments (18%), of 194 with available contact information, responded to the survey. Despite the low response rate, the responding sample was representative of national medical school demographics with respect to school type, geographic distribution, and school control (Table 1). A chi‐square analysis found no statistically significant differences in the proportion of responding schools compared to national demographics for school type, region, or control (<emph>p</emph> ≥ 0.173; Table 1). Most respondents were chairpersons (80%; 28 of 35) overseeing independent anatomy‐related departments (40%; 14 of 35) or single unified/common basic science departments (29%; 10 of 35; Table 1). Departments' medical school affiliations frequently offered both tenure earning and nontenure tracks (both = 54%, 19 of 35; tenure earning = 26%; unknown = 20%).</p> <p>1 TABLE School and department demographics.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>Respondent and departmental demographics</th><th>Survey outcomes</th><th>ALL schools</th></tr><tr><th><italic>N</italic></th><th>% of 35</th><th><italic>N</italic></th><th>% of 198</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">School type</td></tr><tr><td>Allopathic</td><td align="char" char=".">28</td><td align="char" char=".">80.0%</td><td align="char" char=".">155</td><td align="char" char=".">78.3%</td></tr><tr><td>Osteopathic</td><td align="char" char=".">7</td><td align="char" char=".">20.0%</td><td align="char" char=".">43</td><td align="char" char=".">21.7%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Region<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /></td></tr><tr><td>Central</td><td align="char" char=".">10</td><td align="char" char=".">28.6%</td><td align="char" char=".">44</td><td align="char" char=".">22.2%</td></tr><tr><td>Northeast</td><td align="char" char=".">5</td><td align="char" char=".">14.3%</td><td align="char" char=".">49</td><td align="char" char=".">24.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Southern</td><td align="char" char=".">17</td><td align="char" char=".">48.6%</td><td align="char" char=".">72</td><td align="char" char=".">36.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Western</td><td align="char" char=".">3</td><td align="char" char=".">8.6%</td><td align="char" char=".">33</td><td align="char" char=".">16.7%</td></tr><tr><td>School Control</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /></tr><tr><td>Public</td><td align="char" char=".">20</td><td align="char" char=".">57.1%</td><td align="char" char=".">105</td><td align="char" char=".">53.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Private not‐for‐profit</td><td align="char" char=".">13</td><td align="char" char=".">37.1%</td><td align="char" char=".">86</td><td align="char" char=".">43.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Private for‐profit</td><td align="char" char=".">2</td><td align="char" char=".">5.7%</td><td align="char" char=".">7</td><td align="char" char=".">3.5%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Survey item: What is your primary role?</td></tr><tr><td>Chairperson</td><td align="char" char=".">28</td><td align="char" char=".">80.0%</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /></tr><tr><td>Vice‐chairperson</td><td align="char" char=".">2</td><td align="char" char=".">5.7%</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td align="char" char=".">4</td><td align="char" char=".">11.4%</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /></tr><tr><td>Did not disclose</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td align="char" char=".">2.9%</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /></tr><tr><td align="left">Departmental affiliation for anatomy faculty</td></tr><tr><td>Survey item: Which affiliation best represents where anatomy education faculty are housed in your institution?</td><td align="char" char=".">N</td><td align="char" char=".">% of 35</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /></tr><tr><td>Independent anatomy‐related department</td><td align="char" char=".">14</td><td align="char" char=".">40.0%</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /></tr><tr><td>Single unified or common basic science department</td><td align="char" char=".">10</td><td align="char" char=".">28.6%</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /></tr><tr><td>Clinical department</td><td align="char" char=".">4</td><td align="char" char=".">11.4%</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /></tr><tr><td>Department of medical education</td><td align="char" char=".">3</td><td align="char" char=".">8.6%</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td align="char" char=".">3</td><td align="char" char=".">8.6%</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /></tr><tr><td>Did not respond</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td align="char" char=".">2.9%</td><td align="char" char="." /><td align="char" char="." /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 a Regional designations were sourced from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) regional membership roster. Osteopathic medical schools were also categorized according to the AAMC's regional designations for analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0171369487-12">Faculty time allocations</hd> <p>On average, department leaders estimated that anatomy education faculty spend 62% (median = 68%) of their time teaching (including course administration), 24% (median = 15%) on research (irrespective of funding), 12% (median = 10%) on service responsibilities, and 2% (median = 0%) on administrative duties not directly related to courses (Table 2). These data demonstrated broad variance as some anatomy educators' full‐time equivalents (FTEs) were as high as 90% for teaching and as low as 0% for research. No statistically significant differences (<emph>p</emph> ≥ 0.206) were detected between schools with different advancement tracks (i.e., both tenure and nontenure tracks, tenure earning only, and unknown) for the proportion of time allocated to teaching, research, or service.</p> <p>2 TABLE Faculty time allocations and anatomy teaching services.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>Estimated FTE for anatomy educators</th><th align="left" /></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Survey item: What is the average FTE (full‐time equivalent) for a typical anatomy education faculty member in each of the following areas? Entries must add to 100%</td><td>Mean ± Std Dev</td><td>Median</td><td>Min to max</td><td>N of responding departments</td></tr><tr><td>Teaching</td><td>62.0% ± 21.6%</td><td>67.50%</td><td>5.0% to 90.0%</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>Research (irrespective of funding)</td><td>24.0% ± 20.3%</td><td>15.00%</td><td>0.0% to 80.0%</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>Service</td><td>11.7% ± 7.7%</td><td>10.00%</td><td>1.0% to 40.0%</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>Administration</td><td>2.3% ± 3.8%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.0% to 10.0%</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Student populations taught by anatomy‐related departments</td></tr><tr><td>Survey item: What student populations are taught by your anatomy education faculty? Select ALL that apply</td><td>N</td><td>% of 34</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Medical</td><td>32</td><td>94.1%</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Graduate (MS, PhD)</td><td>23</td><td>67.6%</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Physician Assistant</td><td>22</td><td>64.7%</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Physical Therapy</td><td>18</td><td>52.9%</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Dental</td><td>12</td><td>35.3%</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Occupational Therapy</td><td>11</td><td>32.4%</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Nursing</td><td>10</td><td>29.4%</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Undergraduate</td><td>8</td><td>23.5%</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Post Baccalaureate</td><td>5</td><td>14.7%</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Speech Language Pathology</td><td>4</td><td>11.8%</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Audiology</td><td>3</td><td>8.8%</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Optometry</td><td>2</td><td>5.9%</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Prosthetics/Orthotics</td><td>2</td><td>5.9%</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Respiratory Therapy</td><td>2</td><td>5.9%</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Pharmacy</td><td>1</td><td>2.9%</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Podiatry</td><td>1</td><td>2.9%</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Athletic Training</td><td>1</td><td>2.9%</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Anesthesiology Assistant</td><td>1</td><td>2.9%</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Biomedical Engineering</td><td>1</td><td>2.9%</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Number of student populations taught</td><td>1 to 2</td><td>3 to 4</td><td>5 or more</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Number and proportion of departments</td><td>7 (21%)</td><td>12 (35%)</td><td>15 (44%)</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0171369487-13">Faculty effort and reimbursement models</hd> <p>Many departments (65%; 11 of 17) applied formulaic 'bean counting' methods for determining faculty workloads, often as a function of student enrollment, course credits, and/or contact hours. In some instances, for research‐focused faculty, the time it takes to train students and postdocs was considered analogous to contact hours. Some chairpersons made workload decisions using holistic judgments based on their own experiences, the experiences of their faculty, and the department's needs. In nearly half of the departments (47%; 7 of 15), chairpersons assigned faculty workloads and attempted to "balance" labor distributions based on the unique responsibilities of each faculty member. When asked if their departments were reimbursed for faculty teaching efforts, 41% (7 of 17) of respondents cited FTEs as the primary form of reimbursement, especially when FTEs were associated with defined teaching roles.</p> <hd id="AN0171369487-14">Anatomy teaching services offered</hd> <p>The most common populations taught by anatomy educators were medical students (94%), graduate students (68%), physician assistant students (65%), and physical therapy students (53%; Table 1). Forty‐four percent (15 of 34) of responding departments taught anatomy to at least five different student populations, often across multiple colleges (Table 2).</p> <hd id="AN0171369487-15">Faculty compensation practices</hd> <p>No significant relationship was detected between cost‐of‐living indices and salaries across any faculty rank (<emph>p</emph> ≥ 0.317) according to a bivariate linear regression (Figure 2). Mean anatomist salaries ranged from $63,400 for instructors to $143,500 for full professors. Assistant professors averaged $93,100 and associate professors averaged $116,900 (Table 3). The reported average base salaries for assistant and associate professors were consistent (<emph>p</emph> ≥ 0.056) with national means as outlined in the AAMC 2020–2021 Faculty Salary Report for anatomists. The mean salaries for instructors ($63,400) and full professors ($143,500) reported in this survey were significantly lower (<emph>p</emph> ≤ 0.003) than AAMC averages. Similar compensation data were not retrievable from the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/8Z8K/01sep23/ase2299-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ase2299-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Anatomy educator salaries compared against cost‐of‐living indices based on the responding departments' geographic location. No significant linear relationships were identified." /> </p> <p></p> <p>3 TABLE Faculty compensation practices.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Frequency of salary increases</td><td align="left">N (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Survey item: Typically, how often do anatomy education faculty receive the following?</td><td>Never</td><td>Every year</td><td>Periodically</td><td>Determined by financial status</td></tr><tr><td>Cost‐of‐living increase</td><td>7 (28.0%)</td><td>6 (24.0%)</td><td>5 (20.0%)</td><td>7 (28.0%)</td></tr><tr><td>Merit‐based salary increase (excluding promotion to a higher rank)</td><td>4 (16.0%)</td><td>7 (28.0%)</td><td>6 (24.0%)</td><td>8 (32.0%)</td></tr><tr><td>Monetary Bonuses/Incentives</td><td>14 (58.3%)</td><td>5 (20.8%)</td><td>1 (4.2%)</td><td>4 (16.7%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Maximum salary increase</td></tr><tr><td>Survey item: As a percentage of a faculty member's salary, what is the MAXIMUM value received by anatomy education faculty, in a typical year, for each of the following?</td><td>Mean ± Std Dev</td><td>Median</td><td>Min to Max</td><td>N of Responding Departments</td></tr><tr><td>Cost‐of‐living salary increase</td><td>3.1% ± 0.9%</td><td>3.00%</td><td>0.0% to 5.0%</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Merit‐based salary increase</td><td>5.2% ± 3.8%</td><td>4.00%</td><td>0.0% to 15.0%</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>Bonus or one‐time merit‐based incentive</td><td>10.1% ± 11.3%</td><td>7.00%</td><td>0.0% to 31.0%</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Promotion‐based salary increase from instructor to assistant professor</td><td>17.3% ± 17.8%</td><td>10.00%</td><td>0.0% to 56.0%</td><td>16<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td></tr><tr><td>Promotion‐based salary increase from assistant professor to associate professor</td><td>11.9% ± 7.8%</td><td>9.00%</td><td>0.0% to 35.0%</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>Promotion‐based salary increase from associate professor to full professor</td><td>11.7% ± 7.1%</td><td>9.50%</td><td>0.0% to 30.0%</td><td>20<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td></tr><tr><td>Data used to determine salary increases</td><td align="left">N (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Survey item: Indicate how certain information/criteria are used to determine the allocation of faculty:</td><td>High Priority</td><td>Medium Priority</td><td>Low Priority</td><td>NA or Omitted</td></tr><tr><td>Bonuses—Chairperson evaluations</td><td>7 (20.0%)</td><td>2 (5.7%)</td><td>1 (2.9%)</td><td>25 (71.4%)</td></tr><tr><td>Bonuses—Demonstration of productivity (research or otherwise)</td><td>9 (25.7%)</td><td>1 (2.9%)</td><td>1 (2.9%)</td><td>24 (68.6%)</td></tr><tr><td>Bonuses—Peer‐faculty evaluations</td><td>1 (2.9%)</td><td>1 (2.9%)</td><td>4 (11.4%)</td><td>29 (82.9%)</td></tr><tr><td>Bonuses—Predefined evaluation rubric</td><td>1 (2.9%)</td><td>1 (2.9%)</td><td>4 (11.4%)</td><td>29 (82.9%)</td></tr><tr><td>Bonuses—Student evaluations</td><td>3 (8.6%)</td><td>5 (14.3%)</td><td>3 (8.6%)</td><td>24 (68.6%)</td></tr><tr><td>Bonuses—Department‐level productivity/success</td><td>2 (5.7%)</td><td>5 (14.3%)</td><td>3 (8.6%)</td><td>26 (74.3%)</td></tr><tr><td>Bonuses—College‐level productivity/success</td><td>1 (2.9%)</td><td>6 (17.1%)</td><td>4 (11.4%)</td><td>24 (68.6%)</td></tr><tr><td>Bonuses—Institutional‐level productivity/success</td><td>0 (0.0%)</td><td>7 (14.3%)</td><td>3 (8.6%)</td><td>25 (71.4%)</td></tr><tr><td>Bonuses—Other</td><td>No responses</td><td>No responses</td><td>No responses</td><td>No responses</td></tr><tr><td>Merit‐based increase—Chairperson evaluations</td><td>10 (28.6%)</td><td>6 (17.1%)</td><td>0 (0.0%)</td><td>19 (54.3%)</td></tr><tr><td>Merit‐based increase—Demonstration of productivity (research or otherwise)</td><td>9 (25.7%)</td><td>5 (14.3%)</td><td>2 (5.7%)</td><td>19 (54.3%)</td></tr><tr><td>Merit‐based increase—Peer‐faculty evaluations</td><td>1 (2.9%)</td><td>2 (5.7%)</td><td>5 (14.3%)</td><td>27 (77.1%)</td></tr><tr><td>Merit‐based increase—Predefined evaluation rubric</td><td>1 (2.9%)</td><td>3 (8.6%)</td><td>5 (14.3%)</td><td>26 (74.3%)</td></tr><tr><td>Merit‐based increase—Student evaluations</td><td>2 (5.7%)</td><td>10 (28.6%)</td><td>4 (11.4%)</td><td>19 (54.3%)</td></tr><tr><td>Merit‐based increase—Department‐level productivity/success</td><td>3 (8.6%)</td><td>11 (31.4%)</td><td>1 (2.9%)</td><td>20 (57.1%)</td></tr><tr><td>Merit‐based increase—College‐level productivity/success</td><td>2 (5.7%)</td><td>11 (31.4%)</td><td>2 (5.7%)</td><td>20 (57.1%)</td></tr><tr><td>Merit‐based increase—Institutional‐level productivity/success</td><td>1 (2.9%)</td><td>9 (25.7%)</td><td>4 (11.4%)</td><td>21 (60.0%)</td></tr><tr><td>Merit‐based increase—Other</td><td>No responses</td><td>No responses</td><td>No responses</td><td>No responses</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Mean base salary for anatomy educators (in thousands of U.S. dollars)</td></tr><tr><td>Survey item: Indicate the mean BASE salary, by faculty rank, for PhD trained anatomy educators in your department. Do NOT account for bonuses or fringe benefits in your response. (Outcomes do not consider school control (public vs private) or regional cost‐of‐living differences)</td><td>Mean ± Std Dev</td><td>Median</td><td>Min to Max</td><td>N of Departments</td></tr><tr><td>Instructors</td><td>$63.4 ± 10.0</td><td>$62.5</td><td>$50 to $80</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Assistant Professors</td><td>$93.1 ± 11.0</td><td>$93</td><td>$75 to $124</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>Associate Professors</td><td>$116.9 ± 17.5</td><td>$118</td><td>$85 to $164</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>Full Professors</td><td>$143.5 ± 23.9</td><td>$150</td><td>$100 to $178</td><td>20</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 a One department reporting a maximum of 100% was removed as an outlier.</p> <p>When considering promotion to a higher rank, mean salary increases ranged from 12% (for associate to full professor) to 17% for promotions of instructors to assistant professors, with high variability between institutions (Table 3). To compare salaries between department types (i.e., independent anatomy‐related departments (<emph>n</emph> = 10), single unified (or common) basic science departments (<emph>n</emph> = 5), and other departments (inclusive of clinical, medical education, and "other" departments (<emph>n</emph> = 6))), a one‐way ANOVA was performed on base salaries for the ranks of assistant, associate, and full professor. The instructor rank was excluded due to too many missing salary values between department types. No statistically significant differences in base salaries between the three department types were detected for any of the three ranks (<emph>p</emph> ≥ 0.079). Due to the small sample size and low statistical power of this analysis, future larger‐scale analyses are warranted to confirm this finding.</p> <p>Cost‐of‐living increases averaged 3% (±0.9%; Table 3); in alignment with the typical mean U.S. inflation rate of 3.8% per year, estimated from 1960 to 2021 (Inflation rates in the United States of America, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref11">13</reflink>]). For departments that did not practice annual cost‐of‐living increases (28%; 7 of 25), faculty tended to receive either bonuses (2 of 7) or merit‐based salary increases (3 of 7). Only one department reported awarding annual salary bonuses and cost‐of‐living increases.</p> <p>To justify awarding either bonuses or merit‐based salary increases, departments predominately relied on faculty's demonstrated productivity, research or otherwise, and chairperson evaluations (Table 3). Merit‐based salary increases averaged 5% (±4%) with payouts evenly ranging from never to periodically (Table 3). Bonuses averaged 10% (±11%) of a faculty member's total base salary with payouts occurring annually for 21% (5 of 24) of departments, periodically for 4%, and were never offered for 58% (14 of 24) of departments (Table 3). Eight percent of departments (2 of 25) had no annual or periodic salary increase of any form and were solely dependent upon their departments', schools', and/or institutions' financial status for awarding salary increases.</p> <hd id="AN0171369487-17">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>At a time when anatomy faculty retirements are forecasted to outpace the inflowing anatomy workforce pipeline (Wilson et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref12">30</reflink>]; Edwards et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref13">8</reflink>]), it is critical for department leaders and anatomy educators to evaluate how well departmental expectations and practices align with national norms; as significant malalignment could lead to higher faculty turnover, dissatisfaction, and/or burnout. Department leaders are best positioned to advocate for workplace improvements and promote positive change when they leverage the known ties between the quality of departmental governance and faculty's overall satisfaction (Dandar & Bunton, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref14">6</reflink>]). Here, we selectively discuss common topics that may present as points of contention within departments.</p> <hd id="AN0171369487-18">Protecting research time and retaining academic values</hd> <p>Protected time for scholarly activities is often jeopardized or eclipsed by the competing demands of service, teaching, and administrative responsibilities. Anecdotally, within the last few years, many factors (including student enrollment increases, unexpected curriculum shifts, higher demands for anatomy teaching among allied health disciplines, and anatomy faculty departures) have made it especially challenging for department leaders and anatomy educators to protect time for academic scholarship and research.</p> <p>Within clinical medicine, increased clinical demands and incentives for maximizing clinical productivity have reportedly compromised physicians' academic productivity (i.e., research, mentoring, and service activities). To combat the growing workload imbalance, some clinical departments have implemented academic Relative Value Units (RVUs) to complement their existing clinical RVUs (Mezrich & Nagy, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref15">17</reflink>]; Ma et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref16">15</reflink>]; Dunn et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref17">7</reflink>]; Brigstock & Besner, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref18">4</reflink>]). Not surprisingly, when time is recognized and allotted for academic productivity, residents and faculty deliver significantly more publications and academic presentations, are more frequently promoted to the next academic rank, and receive more research funding (Williams et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref19">29</reflink>]; Lemaire et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref20">14</reflink>]; Voss et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref21">28</reflink>]; Virdi et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref22">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>This clinical narrative mirrors that of basic science faculty with high teaching loads. In the present study, 10% or less of anatomy educators' time was dedicated to research across nearly half (46%, 12 of 26) of responding departments. While these time allocations reflect those reported for Family Medicine faculty (i.e., 10% or less) and clinician educators (i.e., 13% or less) (Hueston, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref23">12</reflink>]; Sheffield et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref24">24</reflink>]; Young et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref25">32</reflink>]), a scarcity of protected time can place anatomy educators at higher risk for not meeting the expectations of faculty advancement committees. The only real solution for ensuring faculty are academically productive is to protect time for scholarship, research, and mentoring. The classic 80:20 rule (i.e., 80% research and 20% teaching, service, and administrative time) has long been used by institutional leaders as a general rule‐of‐thumb for workload distributions among research‐intensive faculty (Barnard, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref26">3</reflink>]). Perhaps it is time to more ubiquitously apply an inverted 80:20 rule for anatomy educators (i.e., 80% teaching, service, and administrative time and 20% research) to establish a better workload balance and to allow anatomy educators, many of which hold research degrees (Schaefer et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref27">22</reflink>]), to adequately execute the research they were trained to conduct.</p> <p>Philosophically, Barchi and colleagues argue that if a university is to expect and require scholarship as a core tenet and for successful promotion and tenure of its faculty, then universities, through the operation of their medical schools in this context, "must provide these faculty the time and the financial support necessary to fulfill their academic mission" (Barchi & Lowery, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref28">2</reflink>]). They also purport, the alternative of reducing scholarship expectations is not viable as it does not retain the academic values institutions were founded upon and will inevitably lead to "the invisible destruction of the great academic medical centers" (Freudenheim, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref29">9</reflink>]; Barchi & Lowery, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref30">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>Of the many scholarship‐related barriers described by Smesny et al. ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref31">25</reflink>]) several are likely to resonate with anatomy educators. Examples include: (i) inconsistencies between time allocations or job responsibilities and scholarship/research productivity expectations for promotion and tenure; (ii) working in a departmental or institutional culture that may not foster, prioritize, or promote scholarship/research, especially scholarship/research in nonbiomedical science fields (e.g., education, psychology, sociology, anthropology, paleontology, etc.); (iii) a lack of support (e.g., mentoring) or funding mechanisms to foster scholarship/research; and (iv) no or very few mechanisms for rewarding and recognizing faculty for their productivity and accomplishments.</p> <p>At the departmental level, the greatest impediment to protecting research time for anatomy educators is inevitably funding. Funding educational researchers may be especially challenging given the general paucity and competitiveness of medical education research grants (Reed et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref32">20</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref33">19</reflink>]; Archer et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref34">1</reflink>]; Gruppen & Durning, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref35">10</reflink>]). In instances when medical education research funding is received, the award amounts are typically low, precluding the coverage of indirect costs and faculty salaries. As such, creatively funding research expenditures and protected time can be burdensome for department leaders. One unique resource, often under the purview of anatomy‐related departments, with the potential for offsetting research costs is the anatomy laboratory itself. Marketing an anatomy laboratory as a high‐fidelity learning facility may materialize as fruitful partnerships with clinical or other education‐focused entities who have a need for continuous professional development or training.</p> <hd id="AN0171369487-19">Annual salary increases</hd> <p>Since 1975, the United States Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) has adjusted benefits for approximately 70 million Americans using cost‐of‐living adjustments (COLA) based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) (Social security cost‐of‐living adjustments, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref36">26</reflink>]). The average annual COLA, from 1975 to 2022, was 3.8% (median = 3.0%) (Social security cost‐of‐living adjustments, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref37">26</reflink>]). SSI increases the amount of money beneficiaries receive as a function of the prior year's CPI volatility and fluctuations. When the CPI is stable, with little change over time, SSI increases very little, if at all. This model ensures that Social Security earnings from one year to the next have the same purchasing power.</p> <p>In the present study, faculty in nearly one‐quarter of anatomy departments do not receive annual salary increases, either in the form of merit increases or cost‐of‐living increases. In 2021, the U.S. cost of goods and services (i.e., CPI) increased 7%, meaning the U.S. dollar had far less purchasing power at the start of 2022 than it had in 2021. Without an annual wage increase to match the CPI, an individual's salary‐to‐expense ratio (i.e., purchasing power) effectively decreases year‐after‐year until a promotion is received or a renegotiation occurs. More importantly, purchasing power losses compound annually making such losses profound over several years. This is best exemplified by comparing two hypothetical individuals over a 25‐year career, whereby one receives an annual COLA and the other does not. Over a 25‐year career (assuming starting salaries of $100,000 for assistant professors, $125,000 for associate professors, and $150,000 for full professors, with each of the two rank promotions at 5 year intervals), an individual who receives an annual 3% COLA would make $609,393 more than an individual who did not receive annual adjustments. We acknowledge that COLAs are often highly dependent upon institutional cultures and finances and are typically out of the control of department chairpersons. However, given these variables and inconsistencies between employers, we advise employment seeking faculty to carefully consider the longer‐term effects and differences in institutional offerings, including fringe benefits, before accepting employment offers.</p> <hd id="AN0171369487-20">Limitations</hd> <p>Despite the survey's low response rate of 18%, the proportion of responding departments, according to school type, geographic distribution, and school control, was representative of U.S. medical schools, per a chi‐square analysis (<emph>p</emph> ≥ 0.173). The low response rate could have been attributed to the timing of the survey's release in August, which is the start of the academic year for many institutions. However, given the low return rate, this study's results may not generalize to a population census of U.S. anatomy‐related departments. This research was subject to the typical constraints of survey‐based methodologies such as individual and item nonresponse bias, variability in item‐interpretation among responders, and general response accuracy (Coughlan et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref38">5</reflink>]). The breadth of queried survey topics was intentionally narrow in hopes of yielding the highest possible return rate from department leaders.</p> <p>Despite this survey reporting lower salaries for instructors and full professors compared to the AAMC report, the mean cost‐of‐living index of the included schools (mean = 99.7; min = 88.2; max = 128.0) did not significantly differ (<emph>p</emph> = 0.919) from the national U.S. cost‐of‐living baseline (100.0). This suggests our sample represented institutions in both higher and lower cost‐of‐living areas. Base salary variations among the respective faculty ranks may be explained by a heterogeneity of credentials, qualifications, and classifications (e.g., tenure versus nontenure).</p> <hd id="AN0171369487-21">Future directions</hd> <p>The presented outcomes provide comparisons for only a few topics relevant to anatomy‐related departments. Future research could investigate faculty development and mentorship initiatives within anatomy‐related departments, travel allowances and start‐up funds, association membership coverage/reimbursements, and/or the diversity of service activities performed by anatomy educators, to name a few.</p> <p>Course instruction requires a significant amount of dedicated time for planning, preparation, and general course management. Therefore, future faculty‐centric surveys would benefit from including more granular items on preparation time related to teaching and course administration. This survey's general framework could also be used to compare across biomedical science departments and disciplines. An expanded research scope and greater buy‐in from additional departments and organizations would be needed before an evergreen resource (e.g., an annually updated reference database) could be developed for department leaders.</p> <hd id="AN0171369487-22">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>Anatomy‐related departments vary widely in their faculty workload allocations, labor distribution models, teaching services rendered, and compensation practices; likely a reflection of unique institutional cultures, locations, and missional needs. The benchmarks provided herein offer department leaders an opportunity to compare and reflect upon their unit's practices to ensure their competitiveness in recruiting and retaining faculty and maintaining healthy levels of faculty satisfaction. These outcomes may also be useful for negotiating faculty or those advocating for positive change. Overall, this work serves as an example of what is possible when departments come together to share their experiences, data, and customary practices. In the future, reporting similar and more expansive data may help departments recognize new practice trends or paradigm shifts, as well as anticipate unforeseen challenges.</p> <hd id="AN0171369487-23">ACKNOWLEDGMENTS</hd> <p>None.</p> <hd id="AN0171369487-24">FUNDING INFORMATION</hd> <p>This work was sponsored without funding by the Association of Anatomy, Cell Biology, and Neurobiology Chairpersons (AACBNC).</p> <hd id="AN0171369487-25">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>None.</p> <hd id="AN0171369487-26">ETHICS STATEMENT</hd> <p>Not applicable.</p> <hd id="AN0171369487-27">DISCLAIMERS</hd> <p>None.</p> <ref id="AN0171369487-28"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref34" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> This work was disseminated as an oral presentation at the annual Anatomy Connected conference of the American Association for Anatomy, March 25–27, 2023, Washington, DC.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0171369487-29"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> Archer J, McManus C, Woolf K, Monrouxe L, Illing J, Bullock A, et al. Without proper research funding, how can medical education be evidence based ? BMJ. 2015 ; 350 : h3445.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref28" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Barchi RL, Lowery BJ. Scholarship in the medical faculty from the university perspective: retaining academic values. Acad Med. 2000 ; 75 (9): 899 – 905.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref26" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Barnard JA. Protected time: a vital ingredient for research career development. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2015 ; 60 (3): 292 – 3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref18" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Brigstock NM, Besner GE. Development of an academic RVU (aRVU) system to promote pediatric surgical academic productivity. J Pediatr Surg. 2022 ; 57 (1): 93 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref38" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Coughlan M, Cronin P, Ryan F. Survey research: process and limitations. Int J Ther Rehabil. 2009 ; 16 (1): 9 – 15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref14" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Dandar VM, Bunton SA. US Medical School Faculty perceptions of department governance. Anal Brief. 2014 ; 14 : 6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref17" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Dunn AN, Walsh RM, Lipman JM, French JC, Jeyarajah DR, Schneider EB, et al. Can an academic RVU model balance the clinical and research challenges in surgery? J Surg Educ. 2020 ; 77 (6): 1473 – 80.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Edwards DN, Meyer ER, Brooks WS, Wilson AB. Faculty retirements will likely exacerbate the anatomy educator shortage. Anat Sci Educ. 2022.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref29" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Freudenheim M. Bitter pills for ailing hospitals. Sunday New York Times. 1999 ; 31 : 1 – 12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gruppen LD, Durning SJ. Needles and haystacks: finding funding for medical education research. Acad Med. 2016 ; 91 (4): 480 – 4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guevara JP, Adanga E, Avakame E, Carthon MB. Minority faculty development programs and underrepresented minority faculty representation at us medical schools. JAMA. 2013 ; 310 (21): 2297 – 304.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hueston WJ. Factors associated with research efforts of academic family physicians. J Fam Practice. 1993 ; 37 : 44 – 8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Inflation rates in the United States of America. WorldData.info; 2022. Available from: https://<ulink href="http://www.worlddata.info/america/usa/inflation‐rates.php#:~:text=The%20inflation%20rate%20for%20consumer,rate%20was%203.8%25%20per%20year">www.worlddata.info/america/usa/inflation‐rates.php#:~:text=The%20inflation%20rate%20for%20consumer,rate%20was%203.8%25%20per%20year</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lemaire SA, Trautner BW, Ramamurthy U, Green SY, Zhang Q, Fisher WE, et al. An academic relative value unit system for incentivizing the academic productivity of surgery faculty members. Ann Surg. 2018 ; 268 (3): 526 – 33.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ma OJ, Hedges JR, Newgard CD. The academic RVU: ten years developing a metric for and financially incenting academic productivity at Oregon Health & Science University. Acad Med. 2017 ; 92 (8): 1138 – 44.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mark A. Advisorsmith city cost of living index. AdvisorSmith; 2021. Available from: https://advisorsmith.com/data/coli/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mezrich R, Nagy PG. The academic RVU: a system for measuring academic productivity. J Am Coll Radiol. 2007 ; 4 (7): 471 – 8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pendleton A. AAA releases results of first anatomy salary/faculty survey. Anat Rec B New Anat. 2003 ; 275 (1): 181 – 1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reed DA, Cook DA, Beckman TJ, Levine RB, Kern DE, Wright SM. Association between funding and quality of published medical education research. JAMA. 2007 ; 298 (9): 1002 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reed DA, Kern DE, Levine RB, Wright SM. Costs and funding for published medical education research. JAMA. 2005 ; 294 (9): 1052 – 7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roskoski R, Parslow TG. BRIMR ranking tables of NIH funding to us medical schools in 2021. Horse Shoe, NC : Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research ; 2021. Available from: <ulink href="http://www.brimr.org/NIH%5fAwards/2021/default.htm">http://www.brimr.org/NIH%5fAwards/2021/default.htm</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schaefer AF, Wilson AB, Barger JB, Azim HM, Brokaw JJ, Brooks WS. What does a modern anatomist look like? Current trends in the training of anatomy educators. Anat Sci Educ. 2019 ; 12 (3): 225 – 35.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schloss EP, Flanagan DM, Culler CL, Wright AL. Some hidden costs of faculty turnover in clinical departments in one academic medical center. Acad Med. 2009 ; 84 (1): 32 – 6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sheffield JV, Wipf JE, Buchwald D. Work activities of clinician‐educators. J Gen Intern Med. 1998 ; 13 (6): 406 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smesny AL, Williams JS, Brazeau GA, Weber RJ, Matthews HW, Das SK. Barriers to scholarship in dentistry, medicine, nursing, and pharmacy practice faculty. Am J Pharm Educ. 2007 ; 71 (5): 91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Social security cost‐of‐living adjustments. Washington, DC : United States Social Security Administration ; 2022. Available from: https://<ulink href="http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/colaseries.html">www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/colaseries.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Virdi AS, Sandi G, Chubinskaya S. Intramural grant program to promote research activity among early‐career faculty members. Acad Med. 2022 ; 97 (9): 1331 – 4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Voss A, Andreß B, Pauzenberger L, Herbst E, Pogorzelski J, John D, et al. Research productivity during orthopedic surgery residency correlates with pre‐planned and protected research time: a survey of German‐speaking countries. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021 ; 29 (1): 292 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams BR, Agel JA, Van Heest AE. Protected time for research during orthopaedic residency correlates with an increased number of resident publications. JBJS. 2017 ; 99 (13): e73.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson AB, Kaza N, Singpurwalla DJ, Brooks WS. Are anatomy phds nearing extinction or adapting to change? United States graduate education trends in the anatomical sciences. Anat Sci Educ. 2021 ; 14 (4): 432 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson AB, Notebaert AJ, Schaefer AF, Moxham BJ, Stephens S, Mueller C, et al. A look at the anatomy educator job market: anatomists remain in short supply. Anat Sci Educ. 2020 ; 13 (1): 91 – 101.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young RA, Dehaven MJ, Passmore C, Baumer JG. Research participation, protected time, and research output by family physicians in family medicine residencies. Fam Med. 2006 ; 38 (5): 341.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By MacKenzie Griffith; Christopher Ferrigno and Adam B. Wilson</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>MacKenzie Griffith, B.A., is a third‐year medical student at Rush Medical College. She hopes to be involved in undergraduate medical education in her future clinical practice. Her research interests include skin disorders and medical education.</p> <p>Christopher Ferrigno, PT, Ph.D. is an assistant professor in the Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology at Rush University, Chicago, IL. He is the Director of the Human Anatomy Laboratory and teaches anatomy to students in the Colleges of Medicine, Health Sciences, and Nursing. His research interests include medical education and the use of motion analysis to study human biomechanics.</p> <p>Adam B. Wilson, Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology at Rush University, Chicago, IL. He is the Director of Anatomy Education and Discipline Director for medical gross anatomy. His research focuses on topics in educational measurement and evaluation. Dr. Wilson is an Associate Editor for Anatomical Sciences Education.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref36"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1391067
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Pulling Back the Curtain: Exploring Norms and Practices among a Sample of Anatomy-Related Departments in U.S. Medical Schools
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Griffith%2C+MacKenzie%22">Griffith, MacKenzie</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1355-8970">0000-0003-1355-8970</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ferrigno%2C+Christopher%22">Ferrigno, Christopher</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5173-6753">0000-0001-5173-6753</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wilson%2C+Adam+B%2E%22">Wilson, Adam B.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1221-5602">0000-0002-1221-5602</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Anatomical+Sciences+Education%22"><i>Anatomical Sciences Education</i></searchLink>. Sep-Oct 2023 16(5):969-978.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 10
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Medical+Schools%22">Medical Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Practices%22">Educational Practices</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Anatomy%22">Anatomy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Researchers%22">Teacher Researchers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Workload%22">Faculty Workload</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Compensation+%28Remuneration%29%22">Compensation (Remuneration)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Medical+Education%22">Medical Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+College+Relationship%22">Faculty College Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Medical+School+Faculty%22">Medical School Faculty</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/ase.2299
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1935-9772<br />1935-9780
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Anatomy-related departments have access to comparative research productivity data (e.g., Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research), yet no datasets exist for comparing departments' general practices pertinent to education-focused faculty. Practice trends in anatomy-related departments across U.S. medical schools were explored by surveying departmental leaders. The survey inquired about: (i) faculty time allocations, (ii) anatomy teaching services, (iii) faculty labor distribution models, and (iv) faculty compensation practices. A nationally representative sample of 35 departments (of 194) responded to the survey. On average, anatomy educators are allotted 24% (median = 15%) protected time for research, irrespective of funding, 62% for teaching and course administration (median = 68%), 12% for service, and 2% for administration. Forty-four percent (15 of 34) of departments taught at least five different student populations, often across multiple colleges. Many departments (65%; 11 of 17) applied formulaic methods for determining faculty workloads, often as a function of course credits or contact hours. Average base salaries for assistant and associate professors reported by this survey were consistent (p = 0.056) with national means (i.e., Association of American Medical Colleges Annual Faculty Salary Report). Merit-based increases and bonuses averaged 5% and 10% of faculty's salaries, respectively, when awarded. Cost-of-living increases averaged 3%. Overall, departments' workload and compensation practices vary widely, likely a consequence of different institutional cultures, locations, needs, and financial priorities. This sample dataset allows anatomy-related departments to compare and reflect upon their practices and competitiveness in recruiting and retaining faculty.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1391067
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1391067
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/ase.2299
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
        StartPage: 969
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Medical Schools
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Practices
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Anatomy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Researchers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Workload
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Compensation (Remuneration)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Medical Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty College Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Medical School Faculty
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Pulling Back the Curtain: Exploring Norms and Practices among a Sample of Anatomy-Related Departments in U.S. Medical Schools
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Griffith, MacKenzie
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ferrigno, Christopher
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wilson, Adam B.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1935-9772
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1935-9780
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 16
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Anatomical Sciences Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1