Impact of Financial Incentives and Department Size on Scholarly Activity Output

Family medicine research is essential to improving population health. It has the unique ability to answer questions about health care outcomes and use those insights to impact communities. Increasing research capacity continues to be a challenge; however, recent literature has touted the success of incentivization in several academic medicine specialties. We used the 2022 CERA annual Family Medicine Department Chair survey to characterize the amount and type of scholarly activities by institutional financial incentive status (yes or no) and type (flat vs variable amount), to investigate the relationship between financial incentives and scholarly output.

Questions included targeted demographic variables, institutional incentives, and family medicine department scholarly output. Summary statistics and logistical regression analyses were conducted.

The overall survey response rate was 47.1% (106/225). Respondents reported financial incentives were allowed at 41 (38.7%) of 106 institutions. Of these, 19 (17.9%) reported clinical faculty received cash-based incentives, while 34 (32.1%) received noncash-based incentives for engaging in scholarly activity. The main barriers to offering financial incentives were institutional budget constraints and department culture or tradition. Financial incentives were not statistically associated with scholarly output; however, faculty size was statistically significant for giving more than 6 presentations (adjusted odds ratio = 0.20; 95% CI, 0.054-0.739).

Institutions aiming to increase their family medicine department scholarly productivity might benefit from focusing resources on increasing their faculty size such as adding consultants, statistical analysts, grant writers, or other research staff.