The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Advancing Faculty Development in Medical Education: A Systematic Review
Abstract
PURPOSE: To (1) provide a detailed account of the nature and scope of faculty development (FD) programs in medical education, (2) assess the quality of FD studies, and (3) identify in what areas and through what means future research can purposefully build on existing knowledge. METHOD: The authors searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and ERIC for articles reporting evaluations of FD initiatives published between 1989 and 2010. They applied standard systematic review procedures for sifting abstracts, scrutinizing full texts, and abstracting data, including program characteristics, evaluation methods, and outcomes. They used a modified Kirkpatrick model to guide their data abstraction. RESULTS: The authors included 22 articles reporting on 21 studies in their review. The most common program characteristics included a series/longitudinal format, intended for individuals, and offered to physicians only. Although the most common aim was to improve teaching effectiveness, several programs had multiple aims, including scholarship and leadership. Program evaluation focused on quantitative approaches. A number of studies employed longitudinal designs and included some follow-up component. Surveys were the most popular data collection method, participants the most common data source, and self-reported behavior changes the most commonly reported outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Although the authors' findings showed some recent expansion in the scope of the FD literature, they also highlighted areas that require further focus and growth. Future research should employ more rigorous evaluation methods, explore the role of interprofessional teams and communities of practice in the workplace, and address how different organizational and contextual factors shape the success of FD programs.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mentoring in Academic Medicine: A Systematic Review
Sambunjak, D., Straus, S. E., & Marušić, A. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.296.9.1103 · Cited by 1,689
Steinert, Y., Mann, K., Centeno, A., Dolmans, D., Spencer, J., Gelula, M., & Prideaux, D. (2006) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/01421590600902976 · Cited by 1,417
Strategies for improving teaching practices: a comprehensive approach to faculty development
Wilkerson, L., & Irby, D. M. (1998) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-199804000-00011 · Cited by 567
Quality of Reporting of Randomized Trials as a Measure of Methodologic Quality
Huwiler-Müntener, K. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.287.21.2801 · Cited by 397
The effectiveness of interprofessional education: Key findings from a new systematic review
Reeves, S., Zwarenstein, M., Goldman, J., Barr, H., Freeth, D., Koppel, I., & Hammick, M. (2010) · Journal of Interprofessional Care · doi:10.3109/13561820903163405 · Cited by 375
Self-citationReframing Research on Faculty Development
OʼSullivan, P. S., & Irby, D. M. (2011) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e31820dc058 · Cited by 335
Steinert, Y., Cruess, S., Cruess, R., & Snell, L. (2005) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02069.x · Cited by 224
Characteristics of the successful researcher and implications for faculty development
Bland, C. J., & Schmitz, C. C. (1986) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-198601000-00003 · Cited by 169
Faculty Development in Teaching Skills: An Intensive Longitudinal Model
Cole, K. A., Barker, L. R., Kolodner, K., Williamson, P. R., Wright, S. M., & Kern, D. E. (2004) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-200405000-00019 · Cited by 122
Branch, W. T., Frankel, R. M., Gracey, C. F., Haidet, P., Weissmann, P. F., Cantey, P. T., Mitchell, G. A., & Inui, T. S. (2008) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e3181900f8a · Cited by 114
Cited by
Steinert, Y., Mann, K., Anderson, B., Barnett, B. M., Centeno, A., Naismith, L., Prideaux, D., Spencer, J., Tullo, E., Viggiano, T., et al. (2016) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2016.1181851 · Cited by 845
Why we need interprofessional education to improve the delivery of safe and effective care
Reeves, S. (2016) · Interface - Comunicação, Saúde, Educação · doi:10.1590/1807-57622014.0092 · Cited by 287
Self-citationLin, H.-C., & Hwang, G.-J. (2019) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2018.1467462 · Cited by 159
Watkins, K. D. (2016) · Journal of Interprofessional Care · doi:10.1080/13561820.2016.1209466 · Cited by 57
Accessible and Adaptable Faculty Development to Support Curriculum Reform in Medical Education
van Schaik, S. M. (2021) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000003804 · Cited by 23
Metadata
- Authors
- Leslie, K., Baker, L., Egan-Lee, E., Esdaile, M., & Reeves, S.
- Venue
- Academic Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2013-07
- Volume
- 88
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1038-1045
- ISSN
- 1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2132475123
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 25
- FWCI
- 15.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Advancing Faculty Development in Medical Education: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/acm.0b013e318294fd29
- The paper
- Leslie, K., Baker, L., Egan-Lee, E., Esdaile, M., & Reeves, S. (2013). Advancing Faculty Development in Medical Education: A Systematic Review. Academic Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e318294fd29
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.