» Articles » PMID: 24037742

Key Factors in Work Engagement and Job Motivation of Teaching Faculty at a University Medical Centre

Overview
Publisher Ubiquity Press
Specialty Medical Education
Date 2013 Sep 17
PMID 24037742
Citations 17
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This study reports about teacher motivation and work engagement in a Dutch University Medical Centre (UMC). We examined factors affecting the motivation for teaching in a UMC, the engagement of UMC Utrecht teaching faculty in their work, and their engagement in teaching compared with engagement in patient care and research. Based on a pilot study within various departments at the UMCU, a survey on teaching motivation and work engagement was developed and sent to over 600 UMCU teachers. About 50 % responded. Work engagement was measured by the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale, included in this survey. From a list of 22 pre-defined items, 5 were marked as most motivating: teaching about my own speciality, noticeable appreciation for teaching by my direct superior, teaching small groups, feedback on my teaching performance, and freedom to determine what I teach. Feedback on my teaching performance showed the strongest predictive value for teaching engagement. Engagement scores were relatively favourable, but engagement with patient care was higher than with research and teaching. Task combinations appear to decrease teaching engagement. Our results match with self-determination theory and the job demands-resources model, and challenge the policy to combine teaching with research and patient care.

Citing Articles

Validation of a didactic model evaluating the usability, usefulness and acceptability of psychological first aid teaching through simulation.

Saguin E, Salome J, Favodon B, Lahutte B, Gignoux-Froment F BMC Med Educ. 2024; 24(1):1431.

PMID: 39695668 PMC: 11654379. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-024-06491-y.


Providing 0.1 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Support to Fellowship Core Faculty Improves Faculty Involvement in Fellowship Education and Recruitment.

Butt A, Christian J, Kress A, Lu B, Hurwitz M, Goldberg S J Cancer Educ. 2024; 39(3):325-334.

PMID: 38430454 DOI: 10.1007/s13187-024-02414-z.


How to deal with the unmotivated medical student in small group sessions?.

Hensen N, Ten Cate O MedEdPublish (2016). 2024; 6:86.

PMID: 38406451 PMC: 10885256. DOI: 10.15694/mep.2017.000086.


Exploring Lithuanian social workers' attitudes towards individuals with alcohol usage problems.

Kievisiene J Nordisk Alkohol Nark. 2024; 41(1):75-96.

PMID: 38356792 PMC: 10863557. DOI: 10.1177/14550725231202070.


Health trajectories of international humanitarian aid workers: growth mixture modelling findings from a prospective cohort study.

de Jong K, Martinmaki S, Te Brake H, Komproe I, Kleber R, Haagen J BJPsych Open. 2023; 9(3):e83.

PMID: 37194550 PMC: 10228245. DOI: 10.1192/bjo.2023.58.


References
1.
Lowenstein S, Fernandez G, Crane L . Medical school faculty discontent: prevalence and predictors of intent to leave academic careers. BMC Med Educ. 2007; 7:37. PMC: 2194670. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6920-7-37. View

2.
DaRosa D, Skeff K, Friedland J, Coburn M, Cox S, Pollart S . Barriers to effective teaching. Acad Med. 2011; 86(4):453-9. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31820defbe. View

3.
Ten Cate T, Kusurkar R, Williams G . How self-determination theory can assist our understanding of the teaching and learning processes in medical education. AMEE guide No. 59. Med Teach. 2012; 33(12):961-73. DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2011.595435. View

4.
Prins J, Hoekstra-Weebers J, Gazendam-Donofrio S, Dillingh G, Bakker A, Huisman M . Burnout and engagement among resident doctors in the Netherlands: a national study. Med Educ. 2010; 44(3):236-47. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03590.x. View

5.
Bunton S, Corrice A, Pollart S, Novielli K, Williams V, Morrison L . Predictors of workplace satisfaction for U.S. medical school faculty in an era of change and challenge. Acad Med. 2012; 87(5):574-81. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31824d2b37. View