Abstract 4364577: Climbing the Academic Ladder in Pediatric Cardiology: Career Advancement, Fulfillment and Challenges - A Survey Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Professional fulfillment, work-life balance and recognition of productivity are central to advancing the specialty. Early signs of burnout among pediatric cardiologists have been reported though the underlying reasons remain unclear. This national survey study aimed to examine career fulfillment, promotion readiness and barriers to academic advancement. Methods: Faculty members at academic pediatric cardiology programs in the US and Canada were invited to participate. Surveys were distributed through division directors, social media, and pediatric cardiology professional networks. Descriptive analyses of the results were performed. Results: Three hundred faculty members completed the survey with majority of the faculty based in the US (99%). Women comprised 56% of the respondents and 99% identified as cisgender. Race distribution included 59% European/White, 26% Asian, 3% Hispanic/LatinX and 1% African/Black. Rank distribution included 3% Instructors, 43% Assistant Professors, 28% Associate Professors and 26% Professors. Tenure track faculty were 16% of the respondents and 76% were full time faculty. 26% of the faculty felt they were either not on track or unsure for promotion. Professional fulfillment was reported as very satisfied or satisfied in 77% of the respondents, while 21% of the faculty were neutral, dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. About one-third (35%) of the faculty had at least one job change quoting compensation, job dissatisfaction, or career advancement as primary reasons. The majority (68%) considered themselves caregiver for a child or an elderly family member with 27% of these respondents not feeling there was adequate caregiver support to fulfill job requirements. Of those who did not have adequate caregiver support, 67% felt limited by current compensation to hire additional support. Of those who considered themselves to be primary caregivers, 67% felt as if their role as caregiver affected their career trajectory. Conclusion: While most academic pediatric cardiologists report job fulfillment, many face uncertainty about their path to promotion and have significant caregiver burdens that impact career trajectories. Institutions must consider policies aimed at providing transparency in promotion requirements as well as implementing solutions, such as equitable compensation, to mitigate caregiver-related strain in an effort to support faculty development, advancement and retention.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».