Citations

Increasing rates of burnout—with accompanying stress and lack of engagement—among faculty, residents, students, and practicing physicians have caused alarm in academic medicine. Central to the debate among academic medicine’s stakeholders are oft-competing issues of social accountability; cost containment; effectiveness of academic medicine’s institutions; faculty recruitment, retention, and satisfaction; increasing expectations for faculty; and mission-based productivity. The authors propose that understanding and fostering what contributes to faculty and institutional vitality is central to preventing burnout during times of change. They first look at faculty vitality and how it is threatened by burnout, to provide a framework for a greater understanding of faculty well-being. Then they draw on higher education literature to determine how vitality is defined in academic settings and what factors affect faculty vitality within the context of academic medicine. Next, they propose a model to explain and examine faculty vitality in academic medicine, followed by a discussion of the need for a greater understanding of faculty vitality. Finally, the authors offer conclusions and propose future directions to promote faculty vitality. The authors encourage institutional decision makers and other stakeholders to focus particular attention on the evolving expectations for faculty, the risk of extensive faculty burnout, and the opportunity to reduce burnout by improving the vitality and resilience of these talented and crucial contributors. Faculty vitality, as defined by the institution, has a critical role in ensuring future institutional successes and the capacity for faculty to thrive in a complex health care economy.

BackgroundOptimal clinical trial endpoints for irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS‐C) are uncertain.ObjectiveThe objective of this article is to compare adequate relief (AR) to abdominal/bowel symptoms, global endpoints, and FDA and EMA responder criteria; and to use AR as an anchor to assess clinically meaningful change (CMC) in IBS‐C symptoms.MethodsUsing pooled 12‐week data from two phase 3 linaclotide clinical trials, daily abdominal/bowel symptoms and weekly global assessments were correlated with AR. Symptom CMC thresholds were estimated using AR as an anchor. Agreement between AR and FDA/EMA responder criteria was assessed.ResultsCorrelations of AR with percentage change in abdominal symptoms, bowel symptoms, and global endpoints ranged from 0.48–0.54, 0.32–0.39, and 0.61–0.71, respectively. Using AR as an anchor, CMC thresholds were 29% improvement in abdominal pain, 29% improvement in abdominal discomfort, and 0.7/week increase in CSBMs, similar to thresholds for IBS‐C responder endpoints recommended by the FDA and EMA. There was considerable agreement of weekly responder rates between AR and the FDA and EMA endpoints (on average, 70%–76% and 71%–82% of weeks with agreement, respectively).ConclusionsAR bridges IBS‐C clinical trials, putting into perspective the disparate primary endpoints recommended by professional societies and regulatory authorities, and allowing researchers, practitioners, and regulators to compare trial results.