Identifying Value Factors in Institutional Leaders’ Perspectives on Investing in Health Professions Educators

IMPORTANCE: Investing in educators, educational innovation, and scholarship is essential for excellence in health professions education and health care. Funds for education innovations and educator development remain at significant risk because they virtually never generate offsetting revenue. A broader shared framework is needed to determine the value of such investments. OBJECTIVE: To explore the value factors using the value measurement methodology domains (individual, financial, operational, social or societal, strategic or political) that health professions leaders placed on educator investment programs, including intramural grants and endowed chairs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with participants from an urban academic health professions institution and its affiliated systems that were conducted between June and September 2019 and were audio recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes with a constructivist orientation. Participants included 31 leaders at multiple levels of the organization (eg, deans, department chairs, and health system leaders) and with a range of experience. Individuals who did not respond initially were followed up with until a sufficient representation of leader roles was achieved. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes include value factors defined by the leaders for educator investment programs across the 5 value measurement methodology domains: individual, financial, operational, social or societal, and strategic or political. RESULTS: This study included 29 leaders (5 [17%] campus or university leaders; 3 [10%] health systems leaders; 6 [21%] health professions school leaders; 15 [52%] department leaders). They identified value factors across the 5 value measurement methods domains. Individual factors emphasized the impact on faculty career, stature, and personal and professional development. Financial factors included tangible support, the ability to attract additional resources, and the importance of these investments as a monetary input rather than output. Operational factors identified educational programs and faculty recruitment or retention. Social and societal factors showcased scholarship and dissemination benefits to the external community beyond the organization and to the internal community of faculty, learners, and patients. Strategic and political factors highlighted impact on culture and symbolism, innovation, and organizational success. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These findings suggest that health sciences and health system leaders find value in funding educator investment programs in multiple domains beyond direct financial return on investment. These value factors can inform program design and evaluation, effective feedback to leaders, and advocacy for future investments. This approach can be used by other institutions to identify context-specific value factors.