The Impact of Fellowship Training on Scholarly Productivity in Academic Dermatology

Faculty members were subsequently searched on the Scopus database to determine the h-index and publication range in years. Correct author identity was ensured by confirming correct departmental affiliations and publications related to dermatology. (Results collected from the Scopus database have been shown to correlate well with those ofISI Web of Knowledge.²³)

Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare continuous variables, and the Pearson χ² test was used to compare categorical variables. Statistical significance was set at P<.05. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS software. This study qualified as nonhuman subject research per the institutional review board of Rutgers New Jersey Medical School (Newark, New Jersey).

Results

The analysis included 1043 faculty members from 103 academic departments. There were 144 dermatologists (13.8%) with procedural dermatology/MMS fellowships, 162 (15.5%) with dermatopathology fellowships, 71 (6.8%) with pediatric dermatology fellowships, 124 (11.9%) with other fellowships, and 542 (52.0%) with no fellowships (Figure 1). Fellowships classified as other included immunodermatology, dermatology-rheumatology, clinical education, dermatoepidemiology, cutaneous oncology, dermatopharmacology, and photobiology. Fellowship-trained dermatologists had a higher mean h-index than dermatologists without fellowships (13.2 vs 11.7; P<.001)(Figure 2).

Figure 1. Distribution of academicdermatologists according to fellowship(n=1043).

Figure 2. Mean h-index of fellowship-trained (n=501) and non-fellowship-trained (n=542) academic dermatologists from 103 departments. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.

There were significant statistical differences among the fellowships examined (Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance, P<.05). Academic dermatologists who completed dermatopathology or other fellowships had higher scholarly productivity than those who completed pediatric dermatology and procedural dermatology/MMS fellowships (P<.05)(Figure 3). Those who did not complete a fellowship had a higher mean h-index than those who completed pediatric dermatology and procedural dermatology/MMS fellowships; however, the difference was not statistically significant.

Figure 3. Mean h-index of 1043 academic dermatologists included in this study distributed by fellowship. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.

Regarding academic rank, there was a significant increase in scholarly productivity (as measured by the h-index) from assistant professor to professor (P<.05). There was no statistical difference in scholarly productivity between professors and chairs. When controlling for academic rank, there were no statistically significant differences in h-index between fellowship-trained versus non–fellowship-trained dermatologists, except at the level of associate professor. However, fellowship-trained dermatologists consistently had a higher mean h-index compared to non–fellowship-trained dermatologists in each rank (Figure 4). Fellowship-trained dermatologists made up 48.2% (222/461) of assistant professors, 45.2% (103/228) of associate professors, 47.3% (125/264) of professors, and 56.7% (51/90) of chairs.

Figure 4. Mean h-index of fellowship-trained and non-fellowship-trained dermatologists stratified by academic rank. Errors bars represent standard error of the mean.

When controlling for the number of active publication years, no statistically significant differences were found between scholarly productivity in fellowship-trained versus non–fellowship-trained dermatologists. However, fellowship-trained academic dermatologists consistently had a higher mean h-index than non–fellowship-trained dermatologists within each 10-year range, except for the 31- to 40-year range (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Mean h-index of fellowship-trained and non-fellowship-trained dermatologists stratified by number of active publication years. Errors bars represent standard error of the mean.

Comment

The proportion of dermatology residents who pursue fellowship training has been steadily increasing, according to data from the American Medical Association and American Board of Dermatology.^1,2 Fellowship training allows graduating residents to have greater exposure to a dermatology subspecialty and often provides a narrower focus for future clinical activities. In our study, we found that fellowship-trained dermatologists had significantly higher research productivity, as measured by the h-index, than academic dermatologists without fellowship, which is likely because fellowship training offers an opportunity to hone teaching skills and pursue more research activity.¹³ For instance, several fellowship programs allow focused research time during training.¹¹ Additionally, residents pursuing fellowships may be more likely to engage in research activities.

Greater scholarly productivity is especially important for academic physicians, as it plays an important role in hiring and promoting.^14,15,19,31 Additionally, increased research productivity has been found to be associated with improved teaching and clinical activity.¹⁹ Research productivity of faculty members also influences the reputation and prestige of the department and the institution’s subsequent ability to attract higher-quality residents and faculty members.²⁸

There were significant differences in mean h-index between dermatology subspecialties. Academic dermatologists who completed procedural dermatology/MMS fellowships had the lowest mean h-index, while those who completed dermatopathology or other fellowships had the highest mean h-index. These findings suggest that an emphasis on research productivity may be greater in dermatopathology. Additionally, dermatologists who completed other fellowships, such as immunodermatology or dermatopharmacology, may have received such fellowships prior to dermatology training. It would be interesting to determine the amount of time allocated for research within each subspecialty fellowship training.