A 2019 study found that between 2014 and 2017, family medicine residents had little improvement in self-assessed preparedness to lead quality improvement projects. This study explored the effectiveness of leveraging a practice-based research network (PBRN) across multiple family medicine residencies not only for implementing quality improvement projects, but also as a teaching tool designed to improve knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and leadership skills in family medicine faculty and residents.
 
  Residents in family medicine residency programs and one community internal medicine program and family medicine teaching faculty participated in a PBRN-led quality improvement project (QIP) to improve colon cancer screening in their clinic. Of 101 participants, 79 (78%) were residents and 22 (22%) were faculty or attending physicians. Questions surveying participants' knowledge and confidence related to QIP before and after the QIP were given.
 
  Overall, participants reported an improvement in their basic understanding of QI concepts (P=.004). They also reported having sufficient staff and ancillary support to meaningfully participate (P=.033). Participants indicated they had more confidence in their ability to participate in a QI project (P=.002), initiate, design, and lead such a project (P=.001), and teach their peers and staff basic QI concepts (P<.001).
 
  PBRNs appear to be a unique way to subjectively improve residents' confidence in their quality improvement skills. PBRNs should be further explored as a method for educating family medicine residents in quality improvement.
 PBRNs appear to be a unique way to subjectively improve residents' confidence in their quality improvement skills. PBRNs should be further explored as a method for educating family medicine residents in quality improvement.
  Critical thinking (CT) skills are an important aspect of clinical reasoning and diagnosis. The goals of this study were to (1) examine levels of CT skills of practicing family physicians, (2) compare the CT skills of practicing family physicians to family medicine residents, and (3) identify individual variables and practice characteristics predictive of CT skills. .
 
  We used a population-based, cross-sectional design to compare practicing and resident family physicians and examine the predictors of CT skills in practicing family physicians. Sixty-two practicing family physicians were recruited across Canada. We used data from 59 family medicine residents at a single institution in Canada. We used the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) to measure CT skills.  https://www.selleckchem.com/products/tideglusib.html  We analyzed data using descriptive and univariate analysis, multivariate analysis of variance, and hierarchical multiple linear regression. CT skills were further examined in follow-up analysis using polynomial regression.
 
  Residents perfh is required to better understand what other predictors may be important for CT skills of practicing family physicians.
  Academic family medicine departments have traditionally promoted faculty using research and scholarship criteria augmented by teaching, clinical care, and service. Clinic-focused faculty who spend significant time in direct patient care may not have enough time to meet promotion criteria, although they are critical for training future family physicians and for rebalancing the system of academic promotion.
 
  We surveyed family medicine department chairs on the effects of protected time for scholarship, presence of promotion and tenure (P and T) committees, salary increase, and special promotion tracks on promotion of physician faculty.
 
  Promotion rates to both associate and full professor were higher for faculty with 25% time for scholarship than for clinic-focused faculty. For clinic-focused faculty, promotion rates to associate professor were higher than they were to full professor. No differences were found for promotion to associate professor and full professor for faculty with 25% protected time for scholarship. No differences were found in promotion rates for either rank between departments that had P and T committees and those that didn't, whether promotion came with a salary increase, or if departments had a special track for physician faculty whose job is patient care.
 
  Promotion rates are higher for faculty with protected time for scholarship than for clinic-focused faculty for promotion to both associate and full professor. Clinic demands on faculty may reduce the likelihood of engaging in scholarship or research that in many academic family medicine departments is necessary for promotion.
 Promotion rates are higher for faculty with protected time for scholarship than for clinic-focused faculty for promotion to both associate and full professor. Clinic demands on faculty may reduce the likelihood of engaging in scholarship or research that in many academic family medicine departments is necessary for promotion.
  Despite substantial health benefits and prolific research efforts to demonstrate safety and increase uptake, vaccine hesitancy has increased dramatically. This study aimed to systematically analyze available literature on vaccine hesitancy in the United States and determine the rationale behind vaccine-hesitant parents and potential interventions.
 
  We conducted a literature search and identified 232 articles; we included 90 after screening. We pulled information from each article using standardized questions for "type of study," "population," "specific vaccine," "reasons for hesitancy," "hesitancy prevalence," "attempt at change," "results of intervention," and "future interventions." We created recurrent themes from the data and analyzed these themes via descriptive statistics.
 
  Vaccine safety was the most commonly identified reason for vaccine hesitancy amongst studies (50%), followed by not enough information (30%), side effects (26%), low risk of disease (26%), social norms (22%), vaccine schedule (21 suggested intervention. Such research must address concerns of the vaccine-hesitant community, comparing risks and benefits of each vaccination in a longitudinal, coherent, and transparently unbiased fashion.