RESUMO
Background: High levels of empathy among resident physicians are associated with improved patient outcomes. Empathy may be learned and practiced when reading nonmedical writing through narrative transportation, a process by which readers identify with characters and become emotionally involved in the plot. We hypothesized that residents and fellows who reported more nonmedical reading would have higher empathy levels and that empathy would decrease during training. Methods: An emailed survey was sent to program directors of Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education-accredited anesthesiology residency and fellowship programs, with a request to distribute the survey to trainees. The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire, reading volume, and demographics were included in the survey. Response data were analyzed using a multiple variable regression model. Results: Of 136 responses, 119 were included for data analysis. Seventeen partially completed surveys were excluded. Higher empathy scores were reported among women (P < .0001) and residents who worked 60 to 80 hours per week (P = .039). Age, postgraduate year of training, relationship status, time spent with family, and avid reading were not significantly associated with increased empathy. Conclusion: In this study, we examined whether nonmedical fiction reading would increase empathy in medical trainees. Our study was not able to find any significant association with time spent reading and increased empathy; however, we found that trainees who worked more hours, specifically 60 to 80 hours, had higher empathy scores. Limitations for this study included a smaller sample size. Further research should be done in this field to determine if there are other intangible factors that affect empathy in trainees.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Scholarly productivity and research output vary among different subspecialties. The h-index was developed as a more wholesome metric that measures an author's contribution to literature. OBJECTIVE: Through a web-based cross-sectional analysis, we investigated the differences in scholarly impact and influence of both fellowship and nonfellowship-trained academic otolaryngologists in the United States. A secondary objective was to further understand the output among the larger fellowship fields. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was performed for active faculty otolaryngologists. A total of 1704 otolaryngologists were identified as faculty in residency training programs across the United States. Their h-index and publication data were gathered using the Scopus database. The data were obtained in August 2019 and analysis occurred in January 2020. RESULTS: Head and neck surgical faculty (25.5%) had the highest representation with fellowship experience. Among all faculty, there was no statistical difference in the overall average h-index scores when comparing faculty that had fellowship training with those who did not (12.6 and 12.1, respectively, P = .498). Rhinologists had the highest publication output per year at 3.90. Among fellowship-trained faculty, the highest average h-index and total publications were seen in head & neck surgery, while facial plastics had the lowest averages (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, fellowship-trained faculty had a greater but not significant scholarly impact than nonfellowship faculty. Furthermore, there were significant variations in output among the various subspecialties of otolaryngology. Growing fields, as academic rhinology, are continuing to flourish in robust research productivity and output. This study further demonstrates the potential, growing influence of fellowship training on research involvement and academic advancement within the otolaryngology subspecialties.
