Related Experiment Videos
The otolaryngology research paradox
R M Naclerio1, S Saengpanich, M Spainhour
1Section of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, 5841 S Maryland Ave, MC 1035, Chicago, IL 60637. rnacleri@surgery.bsd.uchicago.edu
Archives of Otolaryngology--Head & Neck Surgery
|November 1, 2001
Summary
Otolaryngology leaders value research, but clinicians lack time and funding pathways. Many programs fail to offer sufficient research training for future clinician-investigators.
Area of Science:
- Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery research
- Academic medical education
- Clinical research training
Background:
- Research is crucial for advancing otolaryngology-head and neck surgery.
- Current state of research engagement among clinical faculty is suboptimal.
- Limited awareness of dedicated research training pathways exists.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess attitudes towards research in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery.
- To evaluate the current status of research within the specialty.
- To identify barriers to clinician-investigator development.
Main Methods:
- Questionnaire distributed to chairpersons of otolaryngology departments.
- Survey targeted program directors of academic otolaryngology training programs.
- Analysis of returned questionnaires to determine attitudes and research practices.
Main Results:
- High perceived importance of research, yet only two-thirds of faculty engage in it.
- Limited time allocation (17% average) and funding (33% have funding, 12% NIH-supported) for research.
- Majority of program directors believe clinicians are too busy for research; half unaware of 2-year research training programs.
Conclusions:
- Despite recognized importance, insufficient time and resources hinder clinical research in otolaryngology.
- Lack of recommended training pathways impacts clinician-investigators' competitiveness for funding.
- Specialty leaders must address systemic issues to foster research engagement and development.