PA Educator Advancement Is a Workforce Issue: National Survey Findings.

Q2 Health Professions
Raquelle Akavan, James R Kilgore, Aisha Hussein, Jenna Rolfs, Michael S Roscoe, Debra Munsell, Tom Colletti, Blake Rogers, Travis Kaufman, Robert Gray
{"title":"PA Educator Advancement Is a Workforce Issue: National Survey Findings.","authors":"Raquelle Akavan, James R Kilgore, Aisha Hussein, Jenna Rolfs, Michael S Roscoe, Debra Munsell, Tom Colletti, Blake Rogers, Travis Kaufman, Robert Gray","doi":"10.1097/JPA.0000000000000787","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Approximately 80% of physician assistant/associate (PA) new faculty come directly from clinical practice into academia, often with limited preparation for academic career advancement. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the perceived barriers, institutional resources, and predictors of self-efficacy navigating promotion and tenure (P&T) decisions among PA educators nationwide.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A pilot-tested, IRB-approved survey was administered via multichannel convenience sampling (n = 270). Independent variables included institutional criteria, resource utility, mentorship type, and professional barriers. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, nonparametric tests, and multiple linear regression to identify primary predictors of faculty self-efficacy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants reported low overall self-efficacy navigating P&T ( M = 2.93, on a 5-point Likert scale). Significant barriers included high teaching/service loads (63.3%) and perceived lack of clinical valuation (52.6%). Faculty at institutions that formally valued clinical experience reported significantly higher self-efficacy ( M = 3.33/5) than those at institutions without such criteria ( M = 2.84/5; P = .02). The regression model ( R2 = .436, P < .001) identified structured mentorship as the strongest independent predictor of self-efficacy ( β = 0.36), followed by perceived clinical valuation ( β = 0.28) and resource variety ( β = 0.26). Gender disparities were noted, with female faculty reporting higher service loads and greater uncertainty regarding resources.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Current P&T systems do not adequately account for the clinician-educator role. To foster equity and retention, institutions must prioritize targeted support, including formalized structured mentorship, the formal acknowledgement of clinical expertise in the advancement criterion, and the provision of a diverse set of scholarly resources for P&T.</p>","PeriodicalId":39231,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Physician Assistant Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Physician Assistant Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JPA.0000000000000787","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Approximately 80% of physician assistant/associate (PA) new faculty come directly from clinical practice into academia, often with limited preparation for academic career advancement. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the perceived barriers, institutional resources, and predictors of self-efficacy navigating promotion and tenure (P&T) decisions among PA educators nationwide.

Methods: A pilot-tested, IRB-approved survey was administered via multichannel convenience sampling (n = 270). Independent variables included institutional criteria, resource utility, mentorship type, and professional barriers. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, nonparametric tests, and multiple linear regression to identify primary predictors of faculty self-efficacy.

Results: Participants reported low overall self-efficacy navigating P&T ( M = 2.93, on a 5-point Likert scale). Significant barriers included high teaching/service loads (63.3%) and perceived lack of clinical valuation (52.6%). Faculty at institutions that formally valued clinical experience reported significantly higher self-efficacy ( M = 3.33/5) than those at institutions without such criteria ( M = 2.84/5; P = .02). The regression model ( R2 = .436, P < .001) identified structured mentorship as the strongest independent predictor of self-efficacy ( β = 0.36), followed by perceived clinical valuation ( β = 0.28) and resource variety ( β = 0.26). Gender disparities were noted, with female faculty reporting higher service loads and greater uncertainty regarding resources.

Discussion: Current P&T systems do not adequately account for the clinician-educator role. To foster equity and retention, institutions must prioritize targeted support, including formalized structured mentorship, the formal acknowledgement of clinical expertise in the advancement criterion, and the provision of a diverse set of scholarly resources for P&T.

教育工作者的进步是一个劳动力问题:全国调查结果。
简介:大约80%的医师助理/助理(PA)新教师直接从临床实践进入学术界,通常对学术职业发展的准备有限。因此,本研究旨在评估全国PA教育工作者在晋升和终身制(P&T)决策中自我效能感的感知障碍、制度资源和预测因素。方法:采用多通道方便抽样的方法进行试点测试,经irb批准的调查(n = 270)。自变量包括制度标准、资源效用、指导类型和专业障碍。采用描述性统计、非参数检验和多元线性回归分析数据,以确定教师自我效能感的主要预测因素。结果:参与者报告在P&T中整体自我效能较低(M = 2.93, 5分李克特量表)。主要障碍包括高教学/服务负荷(63.3%)和缺乏临床评价(52.6%)。正式重视临床经验的机构的教师报告的自我效能显著高于没有这种标准的机构的教师(M = 2.84/5; P = .02)。回归模型(R2 = .436, P < .001)发现结构化指导是自我效能感最强的独立预测因子(β = 0.36),其次是感知临床评价(β = 0.28)和资源多样性(β = 0.26)。报告指出了性别差异,女性教师报告的服务负荷更高,资源方面的不确定性也更大。讨论:当前的P&T系统没有充分考虑到临床医生-教育者的角色。为了促进公平和保留,机构必须优先考虑有针对性的支持,包括正式的结构化指导,在进步标准中对临床专业知识的正式承认,以及为P&T提供多样化的学术资源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
109
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书