Introduction
Scholarly activity among family medicine physicians is an important element of military medical readiness, both in terms of required scholarship during training and ongoing scholarship to address ongoing and emergent operational medical threats. Most literature on barriers to scholarly activity are limited to training programs and lack an important element in overcoming barriers—their priority to physicians. This study seeks to address these gaps by identifying prioritized research training needs of military family medicine physicians at all levels of training and practice.
Materials and Methods
An institutional review board (IRB)-approved, cross-sectional, online survey was conducted from January 22, 2019, to February 7, 2020, using a modified version of the Hennessy–Hicks Training Needs Analysis Questionnaire. Respondents ranked their perceived level of skill and need for training for 20 literature-based elements of research success. They also self-identified research experience, level of training, and service membership. One-way analysis of variance to 95% CI was used to compare differences in self-reported research experience, number of peer-reviewed publications, number of external grants, and number of IRB protocols among services (Army, Navy, and Air Force), primary roles (resident, faculty, clinician, and leadership), and gender. Chi-squared tests were used to compare proportional differences, also to 95% CI.
Results
Of 124 respondents, most were members of the Air Force (46%), Navy (24%), or Army (13%), serving in clinician (40%) or faculty (32%) roles. Most respondents (67%) reported three or fewer publications and had never been a primary investigator or co-investigator on an external grant. Of the 34 respondents who identified as a faculty at some point in their career, 26 (77%) reported two or more peer-reviewed publications, and 20 (59%) had fewer than six publications. The faculty had significantly more research experience and peer-reviewed publications than residents, clinicians, or leaders (3.92 vs 2.19, 2.24, and 3.40, respectively, P < .001, η2 = 0.22; 5.11 vs 1.13, 2.12, and 4.33, respectively, P < .001, η2 = 0.25). Gender differences in priority ranking were found, but each gender identified the same top three training needs. Among the top 10 training needs for scholarly activity for military family medicine physicians, 7 may be addressed with specific training modules: (1) obtaining funding/grants for research, (2) accessing research resources (e.g., research administrators and other staff, information, equipment, money, and time), (3) establishing a relationship with research mentors, (4) undertaking health promotion studies, (5) designing a research study, (6) writing reports of your research studies, and (7) using technical equipment, including computer software, to find and organize published research or prepare manuscripts.
Conclusions
Knowledge of military family medicine physicians’ prioritized research training needs enables a focused approach to support an essential component of military medical readiness: primary care scholarship. Addressing these needs may begin with raising awareness of military primary care research network resources. Furthermore, a coordinated effort to develop specific training modules to address needs and ongoing research to identify, target training by audience need, and prioritize needs as they change over time are indicated to ensure that military family medicine physicians maintain and develop a flourishing culture of scholarly engagement.
