The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Medical school faculty discontent: prevalence and predictors of intent to leave academic careers
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Medical school faculty are less enthusiastic about their academic careers than ever before. In this study, we measured the prevalence and determinants of intent to leave academic medicine. METHODS: A 75-question survey was administered to faculty at a School of Medicine. Questions addressed quality of life, faculty responsibilities, support for teaching, clinical work and scholarship, mentoring and participation in governance. RESULTS: Of 1,408 eligible faculty members, 532 (38%) participated. Among respondents, 224 (40%; CI95: 0.35, 0.44) reported that their careers were not progressing satisfactorily; 236 (42%; CI95: 0.38, 0.46) were "seriously considering leaving academic medicine in the next five years." Members of clinical departments (OR = 1.71; CI95: 1.01, 2.91) were more likely to consider leaving; members of inter-disciplinary centers were less likely (OR = 0.68; CI95: 0.47, 0.98). The predictors of "serious intent to leave" included: Difficulties balancing work and family (OR = 3.52; CI95: 2.34, 5.30); inability to comment on performance of institutional leaders (OR = 3.08; CI95: 2.07, 4.72); absence of faculty development programs (OR = 3.03; CI95: 2.00, 4.60); lack of recognition of clinical work (OR = 2.73; CI95: 1.60, 4.68) and teaching (OR = 2.47; CI95: 1.59, 3.83) in promotion evaluations; absence of "academic community" (OR = 2.67; CI95: 1.86, 3.83); and failure of chairs to evaluate academic progress regularly (OR = 2.60; CI95: 1.80, 3.74). CONCLUSION: Faculty are a medical school's key resource, but 42 percent are seriously considering leaving. Medical schools should refocus faculty retention efforts on professional development programs, regular performance feedback, balancing career and family, tangible recognition of teaching and clinical service and meaningful faculty participation in institutional governance.
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
Cited by
Pololi, L. H., Krupat, E., Civian, J. T., Ash, A. S., & Brennan, R. T. (2012) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e3182582b18 · Cited by 262
Large language models for generating medical examinations: systematic review
Artsi, Y., Sorin, V., Konen, E., Glicksberg, B. S., Nadkarni, G., & Klang, E. (2024) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-024-05239-y · Cited by 128
Racial/ethnic differences in burnout: a systematic review
Lawrence, J. A., Davis, B. A., Corbette, T., Hill, E. V., Williams, D. R., & Reede, J. Y. (2022) · Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities · doi:10.1007/s40615-020-00950-0 · Cited by 112
Key factors in work engagement and job motivation of teaching faculty at a university medical centre
Van den Berg, B. A. M., Bakker, A. B., & Ten Cate, T. J. (2013) · Perspectives on Medical Education · doi:10.1007/s40037-013-0080-1 · Cited by 86
van den Berg, J. W., Verberg, C. P. M., Berkhout, J. J., Lombarts, M. J. M. H., Scherpbier, A. J. J. A., & Jaarsma, A. D. C. (2015) · BMC Research Notes · doi:10.1186/s13104-015-1393-4 · Cited by 26
Metadata
- Authors
- Lowenstein, S. R., Fernandez, G., & Crane, L. A.
- Venue
- BMC Medical Education
- Published
- 2007-10-14
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 37-37
- ISSN
- 1472-6920 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2144619666
- Cited by
- 242
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 18.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Medical school faculty discontent: prevalence and predictors of intent to leave academic careers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1472-6920-7-37
- The paper
- Lowenstein, S. R., Fernandez, G., & Crane, L. A. (2007). Medical school faculty discontent: prevalence and predictors of intent to leave academic careers. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-7-37
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.