How do academic health centers value and encourage clinical research?

To investigate whether there is a misalignment of the perceived values of a nd incentives fur clinical research within U.S. academic health centers (AH Cs), in 1999 the authors surveyed medical school deans, academic administra tors, department chairs, and faculty members at 80 AHCs that are the member s of the University HealthSystem Consortium, a not-fur-profit consortium of AHCs. A total of 358 faculty from 58% of the institutions surveyed respond ed, with a mean of 3.76 resyonses/institution. There was general agreement that clinical research offers AHCs a considerab le spectrum of benefits, including prestige, recruitment and retention of f aculty, criteria for promotion of faculty, and financial support. Investiga tor-initiated research and government-funded research ranked highest in ter ms of their desirability compared with industry-sponsored and contract rese arch. This preference was agreed upon across all categories of respondents and types of research (translational, clinical tests, and outcomes). Signif icant differences existed between the perceptions of deans/AHC administrato rs, who stated that they were increasing their emphasis on clinical investi gation in the areas of research space (56% of responders), administrative s upport (81%), and patient recruitment (61%) and the perceptions of their de partmental chairs/faculties in the same areas (34%, 52%, and 40%, respectiv ely; p <.05). Faculty opinions documented few new investments in the actual infrastructure dedicated to clinical research. The authors conclude that their findings, which they consider reasonably re presentative, strongly suggest that the value of clinical research to AHCs is well understood. Their findings also identify important opportunities fo r AHCs to provide a wider range of incentives for the conduct of clinical r esearch.