Background: Participation in scholarly activities and mentorship is a pillar in academic medicine for innovation and career advancement, however, many early career APPs do not feel well prepared to participate in projects. To guide the development of support programs, this study identified perceived benefits and barriers to participating in academic advancement and scholarly projects, as well as interventions to facilitate involvement.
Methods: We surveyed Advanced Practice Providers (APPs) in one hospitalist group at the Medical College of Wisconsin from June 2nd to 14th, 2022. Responses were anonymous and included both dedicated daytime APPs as well as nocturnist APPs. We assessed for self reported years of experience, prior involvement in scholarly work, perceived benefits and barriers to scholarly projects, and perceived interventions to address these barriers. Responses were coded using a 5-point Likert scale with dichotomized responses into positive (“strongly agree” or “agree,”) and negative (“strongly disagree,” “disagree,” “undecided,”).
Results: Of the 44 APPs surveyed we received 27 responses for a response rate of 61%. Most respondents (63%) had 0-3 years work experience. Only 30% reported some experience in scholarly projects, such as case reports, original research or QI projects, and only 19% had completed at least one project in their career. APPs perceived multiple benefits to involvement in scholarly work including: increase in medical knowledge (93%), development of curriculum vitae (82%), increase in critical thinking (78%), and foundation for scientific writing and publication (67%). Additionally most respondents noted networking and collaborating with peers (67%), building portfolio for promotion (63%), and pathways to leadership in APP education (62%) as further benefits. The most prominent perceived barriers included: lack of incentives (86%), lack of time due to clinical and administrative responsibilities (78%), and lack of knowledge about possible opportunities (78%). Only 15% cited lack of interest as a factor limiting engagement. When asked about interventions that may facilitate scholarship, most respondents cited protected time (94%), incentives such as financial or recognition (93%), structured peer mentorship programs (81%), and training or workshops (78%).
Conclusions: Our findings highlight how APPs in this hospitalist group perceive multiple benefits of scholarly activities, even early in their careers. Barriers to participation include lack of incentives, time, and lack of knowledge about scholarship and mentorship opportunities. Lack of interest was not a predominant barrier. More would pursue scholarship if protected time, financial or recognition incentives, and structured peer mentorship programs were available. These findings can be used to design interventions to increase APP involvement in scholarly projects.