{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016731734523145567, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002230897936419409, 'mean_word_length': 5.873563218390805, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Associations between departmental features and departmental scholarly activity.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Although the medical literature emphasizes the role of the research environment in research productivity, no study has investigated the effect of different environmental features on research productivity in a family medicine department. This study evaluated the association between departmental features and scholarly productivity.


METHODS
Since 1985, our department has implemented a series of features designed to foster scholarly activity. In addition, it implemented two major curricular obligations--an inpatient service and a required third-year student rotation--without expansion of its faculty. During this period, scholarly activity was measured by an annual survey that included the number of scholarly projects underway, measures of study progress, and the number of publications and presentations submitted and accepted. The temporal sequences of scholarly measures were analyzed using the Runs Test and the Change Point Test.


RESULTS
Departmental research goals and a monthly research forum were associated with increases in quantity of research projects. Required faculty involvement in research correlated with increased involvement. The formation of a research section and provision of scholarly activity mornings were associated with increases in presentations made. The implementation of an inpatient service was not detrimental to scholarly activity, but implementation of a third-year clerkship slowed research progress, shifted activity into non-research projects, and decreased scholarly communications.


CONCLUSIONS
Certain departmental features were associated with quantity of research, faculty involvement in research, and quantity of presentations made.