Prioritizing Research Metrics in Family Medicine: A CERA Study of Department Chairs.

Abstract

Despite wide agreement on the importance of building research capacity to the specialty of family medicine, no standard exists for defining or measuring that growth. Previous work to address this gap yielded the Productivity and Capacity Evaluation in Research (PACER) Tool, a list of quantitative research metrics grouped into seven categories. We surveyed family medicine department chairs to understand which categories of PACER metrics they considered most valuable in evaluating their department's research capacity. We also aimed to compare reported research capacity in 2024 with answers given by family medicine department chairs in 2021. A cross-sectional survey administered through the Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance (CERA) was used to gather information from family medicine department chairs in the United States and Canada. One question asked chairs to evaluate their department's research capacity, and nine questions assessed the relative importance of the seven PACER Tool categories. A total of 218 surveys were delivered, with 111 (50.9%) completed. Survey results demonstrated that program chairs determined funding to be the most impactful category. We found no clear trend in the second most important or least important categories. Results also showed no statistically significant change in reported research capacity between 2021 and 2024. Funding emerged as the category of research metrics viewed as most important by the greatest number of family medicine department chairs. Although other categories of metrics also were viewed as important, this survey demonstrated no clear pattern of their relative importance in this population.