Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2025; 42(01): 075-083
DOI: 10.1055/a-2327-3908
Original Article

Scholarly Activity during Neonatal–Perinatal Medicine Fellowship

Nicolle F. Dyess 
1   Section of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado
,
Patrick Myers 
2   Section of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
,
Christiane E.L. Dammann
3   Division of Newborn Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Patricia R. Chess
4   Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics and BME, University of Rochester School of Medicine, Rochester, New York
,
Erika L. Abramson
5   Division of General Academic Pediatrics, Departments of Pediatrics and Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York
,
Caroline Andy
6   Division of Biostatistics, Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York
,
Pnina Weiss
7   Section of Pulmonology, Allergy, Immunology and Sleep Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to describe scholarly activity training during neonatal–perinatal medicine (NPM) fellowship and factors associated with scholarship productivity.

Study Design NPM fellowship program directors (FPDs) were surveyed between March and October 2019, as part of a larger study of all pediatric subspecialty programs, to define barriers, resources, and productivity for fellow scholarly activity. High productivity was defined as >75% of fellows in a program in the last 5 years having a manuscript accepted for publication based on fellowship scholarly work.

Results Fifty-four percent (54/100) of NPM FPDs completed the survey. Nineteen fellowship programs (35%, 19/54) met the definition for high productivity. High productivity in scholarly activity was associated with a greater likelihood of having funds to conduct scholarship (p = 0.011), more protected months dedicated to scholarly activity (p = 0.03), and fellow extramural grant applications (submitted or accepted, p = 0.047). FPDs of productive programs were less likely to report lack of an adequate core research curriculum (p = 0.018), lack of adequate expertise on the fellowship scholarly oversight committee (p = 0.048), and lack of sufficient divisional mentorship (p = 0.048) as barriers to completion of scholarly activity during fellowship.

Conclusion Research funding, protected research time, established research mentors, and a research curriculum are associated with higher scholarly activity productivity among NPM fellowship programs. Further investment in these resources may improve scholarly activity productivity during fellowship training.

Key Points

  • Fellow productivity depends on protected time.

  • Inadequate funding impacts fellow productivity.

  • Mentorship is important for fellow scholarship.

  • A research curriculum impacts research outcomes.

Keywords

scholarship - research - graduate medical education - physician-scientists - physician-investigators

Authors' Contributions

N.F.D. contributed to the methodology, investigation, data curation, visualization, formal analysis, and writing (of the original draft) of the study. As corresponding author, N.F.D. has full access to the data in the study and final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.


P.M. contributed to the study's methodology, investigation, data curation, formal analysis, and writing, reviewing, and editing.


C.E.L.D. contributed to the study's methodology, investigation, data curation, formal analysis, and writing, reviewing, and editing.


P.C. contributed to the study's methodology, investigation, data curation, formal analysis, writing, reviewing, and editing.


E.L.A. helped to conceptualize the study, methodology, investigation, data curation, formal analysis, and writing, reviewing, and editing.


C.A. contributed to the study's methodology, investigation, data curation, formal analysis, review, and editing.


P.W. helped to conceptualize the study, methodology, investigation, data curation, visualization, formal analysis, and writing, reviewing, and editing.


All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 19 March 2024

Accepted: 14 May 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
15 May 2024

Article published online:
10 June 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA