Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 19, 2026
06:05
The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score (PRIUS): A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time
Published on: February 19, 2021
Research incentive program for clinical surgical faculty associated with increases in research productivity
Anneke T Schroen1, Monika J Thielen, Florence E Turrentine
1Department of Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA. ats2x@virginia.edu
The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
|August 30, 2012
Summary
A new research productivity scoring program in surgery successfully realigned incentives, boosting research output and faculty engagement. The program used points for publications and grants, leading to increased scores and positive faculty feedback.
Area of Science:
- Academic Medicine
- Surgical Research
- Health Professions Education
Background:
- Academic surgery departments highly value research, yet financial incentives often prioritize clinical productivity.
- This misalignment can hinder research endeavors and academic advancement.
- Developing effective strategies to encourage and reward research is crucial for institutional growth.
Purpose of the Study:
- To create a research productivity scoring program within an academic surgery department.
- To realign departmental incentives to encourage and reward scholarly research output.
- To evaluate the program's impact on research productivity and faculty satisfaction.
Main Methods:
- A scoring system was developed, assigning points for publications (weighted by impact factor, author role, manuscript type) and extramural grants (weighted by funding amount, effort percentage).
- Research incentive payments were awarded proportionally to the calculated research productivity scores starting July 2007.
- Data from Web of Science/PubMed/Medline and departmental grants were used; scores were compared pre- and post-implementation, with a faculty survey assessing satisfaction.
Main Results:
- Mean annual research productivity scores increased significantly post-implementation (2180 vs 3389), with a notable rise in the grant component score (272 vs 801, P = .03).
- Operative case volumes saw a 4.3% increase between 2006 and 2011, suggesting no negative impact on clinical productivity.
- Faculty survey results (89% response rate) showed 76% desired more research time and 52% anticipated changes in research behaviors due to the program.
Conclusions:
- An objective and transparent research incentive program, incorporating both monetary rewards and recognition, effectively stimulates research productivity.
- The program was positively received by faculty, indicating successful alignment of incentives with research goals.
- This model demonstrates a viable strategy for academic departments to foster a stronger research culture.
