Questionnaire studies evaluate pediatric pulmonology training programs and funding sources, indicating manpower needs.
Pediatric pulmonology was officially recognized as a pediatric subspecialty by the American Board of Medical Subspecialties in 1984.1-3 The first examination for special competence in pediatric pulmonology was administered in July 1986 by the American Board of Pediatrics resulting in the certification of 158 pediatric pulmonologists. To assess the present and future requirements for pediatric pulmonologists and funds for their required 3 years of training, and to serve as a baseline for future pediatric pulmonology manpower surveys, two questionnaire studies were carried out in 1985. The first surveyed pediatric pulmonology-training program directors to determine the number, funding sources, and current activities of pediatric pulmonologists trained between 1981 and 1985. The second study was a survey of pediatric department chairmen to determine the current availability of pediatric pulmonologists and pediatric pulmonology divisions within academic departments of pediatrics. In addition, information about current and future (to 1990) plans to recruit pediatric pulmonologists was requested. SURVEY OF PEDIATRIC PULMONOLOGY TRAINEES' (1981 TO 1985) FUNDING SOURCES AND PRESENT POSITIONS Thirty-nine questionnaires were distributed and responses were obtained from 32 of these 39 programs. The primary funding sources for pediatric pulmonology trainees who were engaged in their fellowship training during the 1985/1986 academic year are summarized in Table 1. The distribution of funding sources during the 1985/1986 academic year was approximately one third from the American Lung Association and Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, approximately one third from other national governmental and private sources, and approximately one third from local hospitals or other health care institutions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 1988 study studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: