No abstract

IntroductionSuccess in research is a well-known challenge for physician assistant (PA) educators. Multiple barriers to research productivity have been proposed. This study examines potential barriers to PA research productivity.MethodsTwo hundred forty-seven PA programs were stratified by region and Carnegie classification, creating 28 strata. One program was randomly sampled from each stratum, and faculty from sampled programs were invited to participate (N = 214). An electronic survey was deployed via Qualtrics. Data were analyzed, accounting for the stratified survey sample design. Reported are proportions with associated 95% confidence intervals.ResultsSurvey response rate was 53% (N = 114). The mean age was 46.7 years [44.5, 48.8 years] and 61% [52.4, 70.4] of respondents were female. Most respondents (53.5%; [44.2, 62.8]) were assistant professors and reported being employed as PA faculty for a mean of 12.4 years [11.2, 13.7 years]. Most respondents (68.1%; [59.7, 76.6]) reported 0 peer-reviewed research articles regardless of number of years as faculty. Few reported an interest in research (22.3%; [14.3, 29.9]) or felt internally driven to perform research (35.4%; [26.6, 44.2]). Most pursued a faculty position to teach (78.1%; [70.5, 85.7]) and spent little time pursuing research. Only 15.8% ([9.7, 21.9]) received research mentorship.DiscussionThis study identified lack of interest in research by faculty and lack of mentorship engagement as important factors underlying the profession’s poor scholarly output. Initiatives to increase scholarship must first focus on fostering individual interest and increasing motivation.

There is little consensus among programs that train physician assistants (PAs) regarding how much time should be devoted to the study of anatomy, what should be included, or how it should be taught. Similar concerns led us to redesign anatomy for medical students and introduce clinically engaged anatomy, an approach designed in collaboration with clinical faculty. This approach presents anatomy entirely within the context of common clinical cases. This report examines whether clinically engaged anatomy could be adapted to the PA program, where students cover the basic sciences in half the time as medical students. We offered a modified version of clinically engaged anatomy to PA students in which time spent in self-directed learning activities was reduced relative to medical students. We compared their scores on an examination of long-term recall to students who took the previous course. Two classes who took clinically engaged anatomy, scored the same or significantly higher on every portion of the examination (P < 0.05). Students expressed high satisfaction with the course (Likert scale, 4.3-4.8/5 points). Compared to medical students who took clinically engaged anatomy, the data suggest that the tradeoff for reducing the time spent in self-directed learning was reduced skills in applying structure-function relationships and spatial reasoning to clinical problems. The data suggest clinically engaged anatomy can be effective in various educational settings, and can be readily adapted to clinical programs that vary in the depth that anatomy is covered. Nonetheless, careful assessments are needed to determine if the necessary tradeoffs are consistent with the goals of the profession.