Linking leadership development programs for physicians with organization-level outcomes: a realist review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hospitals invest in Leadership Development Programs (LDPs) for physicians, assuming they benefit the organization's performance. Researchers have listed the advantages of LDPs, but knowledge of how and why organization-level outcomes are achieved is missing. OBJECTIVE: To investigate how, why and under which circumstances LDPs for physicians can impact organization-level outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a realist review, following the RAMESES guidelines. Scientific articles and grey literature published between January 2010 and March 2021 evaluating a leadership intervention for physicians in the hospital setting were considered for inclusion. The following databases were searched: Medline, PsycInfo, ERIC, Web of Science, and Academic Search Premier. Based on the included documents, we developed a LDP middle-range program theory (MRPT) consisting of Context-Mechanism-Outcome configurations (CMOs) describing how specific contexts (C) trigger certain mechanisms (M) to generate organization-level outcomes (O). RESULTS: In total, 3904 titles and abstracts and, subsequently, 100 full-text documents were inspected; 38 documents with LDPs from multiple countries informed our MRPT. The MRPT includes five CMOs that describe how LDPs can impact the organization-level outcomes categories 'culture', 'quality improvement', and 'the leadership pipeline': 'Acquiring self-insight and people skills (CMO1)', 'Intentionally building professional networks (CMO2)', 'Supporting quality improvement projects (CMO3)', 'Tailored LDP content prepares physicians (CMO4)', and 'Valuing physician leaders and organizational commitment (CMO5)'. Culture was the outcome of CMO1 and CMO2, quality improvement of CMO2 and CMO3, and the leadership pipeline of CMO2, CMO4, and CMO5. These CMOs operated within an overarching context, the leadership ecosystem, that determined realizing and sustaining organization-level outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: LDPs benefit organization-level outcomes through multiple mechanisms. Creating the contexts to trigger these mechanisms depends on the resources invested in LDPs and adequately supporting physicians. LDP providers can use the presented MRPT to guide the development of LDPs when aiming for specific organization-level outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | medium |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.151 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".