Faculty development in health professions education: exploring need assessment, challenges, and opportunities in Vietnam

Abstract

Background

Faculty development (FD) is essential for strengthening health professions education, yet context specific evidence from emerging medical schools in lower- and middle-income settings remains limited. This study aimed to identify faculty development needs, perceived barriers, and preferred delivery formats at the College of Health Sciences, VinUniversity, with the goal of informing contextually appropriate program design.

Methods

A descriptive cross-sectional needs assessment was conducted using an electronic survey that addressed faculty development needs in teaching, research, and leadership; perceived barriers to accessing development initiatives; and preferred formats for organizing training programs.

Results

From 350 faculty members invited, 121 participated (response rate: 34.6%), representing a diverse range of disciplines. Across all domains, faculty rated most development topics as important or very important, with the highest mean scores observed for teaching evidence-based medicine, clinical teaching and supervision, assessment design, research methodology and international research collaboration. The study also identified significant barriers to FD such as time constraints (80%), language challenges in English-delivered programs (31%), and high program costs (36%). Despite these barriers, there was a notable preference for interactive training formats, with workshops and seminars (76%), and hands-on training (75%) being the most favored. Notably, 76% of respondents were willing to serve as trainers, indicating promising potential for peer-led FD initiatives. Qualitative analysis highlighted four themes: the need to prioritize clinical and adjunct faculty, the impact of workload and limited institutional support, demand for structured pedagogical and research training with international linkages, and the importance of linguistically and culturally adapted programs.

Conclusion

This study identifies convergent faculty development priorities, barriers, and preferred strategies in a Vietnamese health professions context. The findings point to the value of flexible, affordable, and bilingual initiatives that emphasize core teaching, research, and leadership skills, explicitly target clinical and adjunct faculty, and make use of interactive and peer led formats. Multi institutional and longitudinal studies are warranted to examine how such programs can be implemented and to assess their impact on faculty practice and educational outcomes in similar settings.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-025-08341-x.

Background

Faculty development (FD) is essential for enhancing the quality of health professions education (HPE), as it equips educators with the knowledge and skills required to meet the demands of modern medical curricula and evolving societal expectations [1]. Effective FD initiatives address diverse faculty roles and needs, enabling educators to support curricular reform, adopt innovative pedagogies, and contribute to scholarly activities [2]. However, their impact is shaped by institutional support, available resources, and organizational culture [3]. Barriers such as inadequate funding, heavy workloads, and resistance to change frequently limit participation and long term effectiveness, whereas structured programs that emphasize teaching, curriculum development, and leadership have been associated with improved academic and educational outcomes [1]. The World Federation of Medical Education (WFME) explicitly highlights comprehensive faculty development as a core component of quality assurance in medical education, underscoring its strategic importance for institutions that seek to meet international standards [4].

Within Southeast Asia, efforts to strengthen faculty development are gaining momentum as countries respond to rapid expansion and modernization of health professions education [5, 6]. In Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia, capacity building has focused on targeted training programs for medical educators and the establishment of dedicated faculty development units within medical schools [5]. Thailand has emphasized international cooperation, blended learning formats, and mentorship systems to adapt global approaches to local needs while maintaining alignment with international trends [7, 8]. In resource constrained settings such as Cambodia, experience shows that contextualization is crucial, with locally tailored strategies required to ensure that faculty development programs are feasible, relevant, and sustainable [9].

In Vietnam, faculty development is closely linked to broader curriculum reform, but its systematic recognition, coordination, and integration across institutions remain limited [5, 10]. The University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City has pioneered a dedicated faculty development unit, illustrating how structured institutional investment can support educational innovation in southern Vietnam [11]. Nevertheless, these developments do not fully reflect the distinct institutional landscapes, clinical networks, and resource configurations of northern Vietnam.

Context of the study

The College of Health Sciences at VinUniversity, located in Hanoi in northern Vietnam, represents a compelling case study of both the challenges and opportunities associated with faculty development. Established in 2020, the institution offers undergraduate medical and nursing programs as well as postgraduate training in specialties such as internal medicine, surgery, pediatrics, orthopedics, and radiology [12]. Within a short period, VinUniversity has rapidly expanded its academic and clinical network, recruiting more than 350 affiliated faculty members from public and private healthcare settings. This growth provides students with diverse and rich practical training environments, but it also highlights a pressing need for well-structured and effective faculty development initiatives to support consistent educational quality across sites.

Designing impactful faculty development programs requires a clear understanding of faculty members’ priorities, perceived barriers, and preferred modes of engagement [13]. However, such context specific data remain limited, particularly for emerging medical schools in lower and middle income settings. This study addresses this gap by systematically identifying faculty development needs, challenges, and preferred strategies in one Vietnamese health professions institution, with the aim of informing similar initiatives in comparable contexts.

Research framework

We adopted the Context-Input-Process-Product (CIPP) evaluation model as a guiding lens for this needs assessment [14]. In our application of CIPP, Context refers to the institutional environment and educational landscape of VinUniversity; Input involves identifying faculty development needs, priorities, and barriers to engagement; Process considers strategies for implementing faculty development based on those needs; and Product anticipates the outcomes (e.g. improved faculty competencies and educational quality). We focused primarily on the Input dimension to address our research questions, while briefly acknowledging Context factors and expected Products for completeness.

Research questions

While the CIPP framework serves as the lens of the study, this research primarily focuses on the Input dimension, addressing the following questions to achieve its aims:

1. What are the key faculty development needs in teaching, research, and leadership?

2. What barriers hinder faculty engagement in development initiatives?

3. What formats and strategies are preferred by faculty for effective professional development programs?

Methods

Study design

This study employed a cross-sectional survey design to address the research questions. The primary approach was quantitative, using a structured survey, supplemented by qualitative data from open-ended questions to explore faculty development challenges and recommendations in greater depth.

Population and sampling

The study population consists of over 350 faculty members, including full-time, adjunct, and affiliated faculty from institutions such as VinUniversity, Vinmec Healthcare System, The 108 Military Central Hospital, Bach Mai Hospital, Vietnam National Children’s Hospital, and other clinical and academic partners. These participants were selected based on their involvement in teaching, research, and leadership roles within health professions education at VinUniversity from 2020 to 2024. The study specifically includes a diversity of faculty roles to examine the varied perspectives and needs related to faculty development. A convenience sampling method is utilized, with efforts to mitigate bias by ensuring diverse representation across different departments, academic ranks, and years of experience.

Survey instrument development and validation

The survey began with a consent form and a brief introduction explaining the purpose of the research. The first section focused on demographic information, collecting basic details such as institution name, department/discipline, current position, years of experience, and primary responsibilities. The main structure of the survey was designed to evaluate three primary areas:

1. Faculty Development Needs: Participants rated the importance of various aspects of teaching, research, and leadership development using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Not important, 5 = Very important).

2. Perceived Barriers: Respondents identified challenges to participating in faculty development activities by selecting from predefined categories and providing additional insights through open-ended responses.

3. Preferred Formats for Development Activities: Participants indicated their preferences for formats such as workshops, online courses, mentorship programs, peer learning groups and hands-on training.

Additionally, the survey included two optional open-ended questions: one to determine faculty willingness to join as trainers for development programs and their specialties, and another to gather any further comments or recommendations related to faculty development topics.

The questionnaire was generated from the literature and then underwent a five-step process, beginning with a critical review of existing literature [15]. Expert feedback was sought to enhance relevance and clarity. A pilot test was conducted with a subset of faculty members, and their feedback informed refinements to the instrument, including adjustments to survey length and terminology. The final version was made available in both Vietnamese and English to ensure inclusivity and comprehensibility (Supplementary Material: Questionnaire).

Data collection

Data was collected over a three-month period, from October to December 2024. Invitations were sent via official email by the College of Health Sciences at VinUniversity, with two bi-weekly reminders to maximize the response rate. The survey was administered online using the Microsoft platform, and participants were informed that completion would take approximately 15–20 min. Data collection was conducted anonymously, with strict confidentiality measures to ensure the privacy and security of participant responses.

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at VinUniversity (Approval No. 105/2024/QD-VMEC, dated October 1, 2024). Informed consent was electronically obtained from all participants prior to survey completion. Participants were informed about the purpose of the study, their right to withdraw at any time, and the measures taken to ensure privacy and data security.

Data analysis

Quantitative data were analyzed using R (version 4.3.2). Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, and frequency distributions, summarized participant responses. Pearson correlations were conducted to explore relationships between faculty characteristics and their perceived needs or barriers using the cor.test() function. Qualitative data from open-ended responses were analyzed through thematic coding, identifying recurring themes related to faculty development challenges and opportunities. Identifiable information was not collected, and responses were anonymized during analysis.

Results

Participant demographics

Out of approximately 350 faculty members invited to participate, 121 completed the survey, yielding a response rate of 34.6%. Participants represented a mix of institutions across the VinUniversity and affiliated partners, and came from a wide range of disciplines (Table 1). Most respondents held lecturer positions (78%) and were early in their education careers, with 55% reporting 0–5 years of experience in health professions education, indicating a predominance of early-career faculty.

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of participants

Variable	N = 1211
Institutions
Vinmec Healthcare System	35 (29%)
VinUniversity	17 (17%)
The 108 Military Central Hospital	15 (12%)
Bach Mai Hospital	5 (4%)
Hanoi Mental Health Hospital	4 (3%)
Hanoi Heart Hospital	3 (2%)
National Children’s Hospital	2 (1%)
Others	40 (33%)
Department/Discipline
Internal Medicine	25 (21%)
Surgery	9 (7%)
Obstetrics and Gynecology	4 (3%)
Pediatrics	5 (4%)
Medical Education	19 (16%)
Paraclinical Departments	14 (12%)
Others Departments*	45 (37%)
Current Position
Lecturer	94 (78%)
Clinical Lecturer	4 (3%)
Senior Lecturer	3 (2%)
Assistant Professor	4 (3%)
Professor	5 (4%)
Others	11 (10%)
Experience in Health Professions Education
0–2 years	35 (29%)
3–5 years	32 (26%)
6–10 years	23 (19%)
11–15 years	10 (9%)
More than 15 years	21 (17%)

¹ Data are presented as n (%)

*Other Departments: Otorhinolaryngology (ENT), Ophthalmology, Nutrition, Psychiatry, Infectious Diseases, Intensive Care Unit, Traditional Medicine, Emergency Medicine, Nursing, Rehabilitation, Anesthesiology, Endocrinology and Diabetes, Oncology and Hematology, Dermatology, Immunology and Rheumatology, Pharmacy

Table 2 summarizes the primary responsibilities of faculty respondents. The most frequently reported responsibilities were clinical supervision and teaching (n = 91, 75%) and clinical practice (n = 81, 67%), underscoring the central role of clinical teaching and patient care in faculty duties. In contrast, academic administration and leadership (n = 8, 7%) and community engagement and outreach (n = 10, 8%) were least commonly reported.

Table 2.

Primary responsibilities of participants

Primary Responsibility	N = 1211
Teaching Preclinical Courses	40 (33%)
Clinical Supervision and Teaching	91 (75%)
Research and Scholarship	42 (35%)
Simulation-Based Teaching	17 (14%)
Curriculum Development and Oversight	19 (16%)
Academic Administration and Leadership	8 (7%)
Hospital Administration and Leadership	14 (12%)
Student Mentorship and Advising	39 (32%)
Clinical Practice	81 (67%)
Community Engagement and Outreach	10 (8%)

¹Data are presented as n (%), Participants could select multiple responsibilities; values are presented as n (%) of respondents selecting each option

RQ1: faculty development needs in teaching, research, and leadership

Participants rated FD needs across teaching, research, and leadership domains on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Not important, 5 = Very important). Nearly all areas were deemed important, with “not important” ratings below 1%, reflecting a notable consensus on the value of FD across domains.

Teaching needs

Table 3 shows that all teaching related faculty development needs were rated highly, with mean scores ranging from 4.16 to 4.50 on a 5-point scale. The highest rated needs were teaching evidence-based medicine principles effectively and providing effective clinical teaching and supervision (both mean 4.50), followed closely by designing effective assessment tools (mean 4.45). Integrating artificial intelligence tools for teaching and learning had the lowest mean score (4.16 ± 0.76), suggesting that although technology enhanced teaching is valued, it is viewed as a relatively lower priority compared with core pedagogical skills.

Table 3.

Perceived importance of faculty development needs in teaching

Faculty Development Needs	Mean ± SD
Teaching evidence-based medicine principles effectively	4.50 ± 0.77
Providing effective clinical teaching and supervision	4.50 ± 0.69
Designing effective assessment tools	4.45 ± 0.64
Incorporating active learning strategies in teaching	4.43 ± 0.73
General curriculum planning and course design	4.42 ± 0.80
Delivering and receiving constructive feedback	4.42 ± 0.70
Understanding and applying competency-based education principles	4.42 ± 0.74
Integrating interprofessional learning into teaching and practice	4.38 ± 0.78
Delivering engaging and effective theoretical lectures	4.34 ± 0.73
Integrating artificial intelligent tools for teaching and learning	4.16 ± 0.76

Research needs

Table 4 summarizes perceived needs related to research and scholarly activities. Developing research methodology skills and engaging in international research collaborations were the highest rated items (both mean 4.43), followed closely by writing scientific manuscripts (mean 4.38) and developing feasible and fundable research ideas (mean 4.35). Conducting clinical trials had the lowest mean rating (4.15 ± 0.94), suggesting that more specialized or resource intensive research activities are viewed as somewhat less pressing than core methodological and publication related competencies.

Table 4.

Perceived importance of faculty development needs in research and scholarly activities

Faculty Development Needs	Mean ± SD
Developing research methodology skills	4.43 ± 0.83
Engaging in international research collaborations	4.43 ± 0.74
Getting published: How to write a scientific manuscript	4.38 ± 0.82
Developing a feasible and fundable research idea	4.35 ± 0.73
Understanding research ethics and integrity	4.35 ± 0.92
Developing systematic literature reviews skill	4.34 ± 0.82
Motivation/interest to engage in scholarly activities	4.32 ± 0.84
Grant writing and funding applications	4.30 ± 0.84
Using digital tools for data visualization and conference presentations	4.29 ± 0.81
Biostatistics and data analysis	4.28 ± 0.82
Conducting clinical trials	4.15 ± 0.94

Leadership needs

Table 5 indicates that all leadership and management related faculty development needs were rated highly (means > 4.0). The highest priority was participation in international collaborations for faculty development (mean 4.39 ± 0.66), followed by time, task, and project management and networking opportunities. Conflict management and negotiation had the lowest mean score (4.05 ± 0.88), but still fell within the ‘important’ range, suggesting that leadership, collaboration, and international engagement are collectively viewed as key development areas.

Table 5.

Perceived importance of faculty development needs in leadership and management

Faculty Development Needs	Mean ± SD
Participating in international collaborations for faculty development	4.39 ± 0.66
Time, task, and/or project management	4.23 ± 0.84
Networking Opportunities with Other Institutions	4.21 ± 0.80
Communication and interpersonal skills	4.21 ± 0.84
Information technology and computer skills	4.13 ± 0.84
Cultural Competency	4.13 ± 0.85
Mental Health, Well-being and Stress Management	4.12 ± 0.91
Leadership skills	4.09 ± 0.89
Quality and accreditation in higher education	4.08 ± 0.92
Conflict management and negotiation	4.05 ± 0.88

Correlation analysis

We examined whether faculty background characteristics correlated with their development needs. Pearson correlations between years of experience and perceived FD needs in teaching, research, and leadership revealed a significant association only for ‘developing research methodology skills’ (p = 0.011). Mid-career faculty (6–15 years of experience) rated this need highest (mean = 4.67, SD = 0.65) compared to early-career faculty (0–5 years: mean = 4.48, SD = 0.70) and those with > 15 years (mean = 4.00, SD = 1.05). No other faculty development need showed a significant difference or correlation across experience levels or other faculty characteristics, indicating that the importance assigned to most topics was consistent regardless of seniority or position.

For instance, faculty of different academic ranks and institutional affiliations did not differ significantly in their priority ratings (all p > 0.05). We also observed no significant correlations between years of experience and perceived barriers to development participation. These findings suggest that, in general, faculty development needs and perceived obstacles were consistently identified across various faculty subgroups.

RQ2: barriers to faculty development engagement

Table 6 summarizes perceived barriers to faculty development engagement. Lack of time was the most frequently reported barrier (n = 97, 80%), followed by high costs or insufficient funding for course fees (n = 43, 36%) and language barriers in English-delivered courses (n = 37, 31%). Smaller but still relevant barriers included a shortage of knowledgeable trainers, limited institutional or leadership support, and limited motivation or rewards. No respondents reported inadequate infrastructure or poorly aligned course design, suggesting these were not perceived problems in this setting.

Table 6.

Perceived barriers that hinder faculty engagement in development initiatives

Variable	N = 1211
Lack of Time	97 (80%)
High costs or insufficient funding for course fees	43 (36%)
Language barriers	37 (31%)
Shortage of knowledgeable faculty to serve as trainers	34 (28%)
Lack of advertisement or inadequate communication	31 (26%)
Limited institutional or leadership support	28 (23%)
Limited motivation or insufficient rewards	27 (22%)
Irrelevant or unappealing topics	21 (17%)
Inadequate infrastructure	0 (0%)
Poorly aligned course design and structure	0 (0%)

¹ Data are presented as n (%). Participants could select multiple options; values are presented as n (%) of respondents selecting each option

RQ3: preferred formats and strategies for faculty development

Table 7 shows that workshops and seminars (n = 92, 76%) and hands-on training (n = 91, 75%) were the most preferred faculty development formats, followed by online courses (n = 79, 65%). Mentorship programs were also frequently selected (n = 58, 48%), whereas lectures, conferences, and peer learning groups were less commonly preferred.

Table 7.

Preferred formats for development activities

Instruction Method	N = 1211
Workshops and seminars	92 (76%)
Hands-on training	91 (75%)
Online courses	79 (65%)
Mentorship programs	58 (48%)
Lectures	45 (37%)
Conferences	38 (31%)
Peer learning groups	33 (27%)

¹ Data are presented as n (%). Participants could select multiple activities; values are presented as n (%) of respondents selecting each option

Qualitative data

To complement the quantitative survey data, two optional open-ended questions were included to explore faculty perspectives in greater depth. A subset of 28 respondents provided detailed responses, which were analyzed thematically using an inductive coding approach by two researchers to ensure reliability. The comments ranged from short phrases to rich narratives describing personal experiences, perceived gaps, and concrete recommendations for future faculty development. Four prominent themes emerged: (i) the need to prioritize clinical and adjunct faculty engagement, (ii) barriers stemming from time constraints and institutional support, (iii) the demand for structured pedagogical training and international collaboration, and (iv) the importance of contextual adaptations to enhance faculty development relevance.

The first theme highlighted the critical yet underrepresented role of clinical and adjunct faculty in undergraduate (UME) and graduate medical education (GME). Respondents emphasized that current opportunities tend to favor full time academic staff, while clinical faculty, who shoulder heavy service and teaching loads, receive less systematic support. One participant stated that “Faculty development should focus more on clinical faculty and find ways to engage clinical/adjunct faculty, who play a vital role in both undergraduate and postgraduate medical education. More study on need assessment and challenges would be needed to solve the issue.” Another respondent wrote that “To understand the clinical faculties’ environment, condition and need, and to supply properly seems urgent” underscoring that a better understanding of clinical settings is a prerequisite for effective programming. Several participants explicitly called for more formal recognition and integration of clinical educators, for example by requesting “to be appointed as official faculty” rather than remaining in loosely affiliated roles.

The second theme centered on logistical and institutional barriers, particularly time constraints and uneven support from hospital leadership. This qualitative finding complements the quantitative result that 80% of respondents selected lack of time as a barrier. One faculty member described the challenge of balancing multiple institutional commitments: “I live in Ho Chi Minh City, so my proposal is to deliver online classes for VinUni and, whenever possible, travel to Hospital A for on-site clinical teaching or in-person lectures at VinUni. My main barrier at the moment is insufficient support from my hospital’s Board of Directors to expand these activities.” Another respondent also stressed the need for leadership support to create protected time for teaching and scholarship, noting that “Support from hospital leaders is needed to balance time and workload so faculty can develop and be fully committed to teaching and research”. These narratives illustrate how competing clinical responsibilities, travel, and limited institutional recognition can restrict participation, even when interest in faculty development is high.

The third theme emphasized a strong desire for structured pedagogical training and opportunities for international engagement. Respondents linked these aspirations directly to the need for high quality teaching, assessment, and educational leadership. One participant expressed a wish for “opportunities for faculty to receive formal training in pedagogy and international collaboration” Another outlined a broad set of competencies that faculty development should address, including “design and planning of learning activities, teaching and supporting learners, assessment and feedback to learners, educational research and evidence based practice, and educational management and leadership.” Some respondents also saw themselves as potential trainers, with one senior clinician noting, “I have published more than 150 papers on high impact journals and happy to share my experiences” and implying readiness to contribute their expertise if supported by appropriate structures. These comments align with the quantitative findings that teaching evidence based medicine, research methodology, and leadership skills were consistently rated as highly important development needs.

Finally, the fourth theme focused on contextual adaptations needed to make faculty development initiatives more relevant and accessible in the Vietnamese setting. Participants stressed that imported programs or materials require careful localization. For example, one respondent recommended “Vietnamizing or localizing foreign training programs” so that content, language, and examples resonate with local practice. Others highlighted the need for clearer and more appropriate evaluation standards, calling for “appropriate criteria and standards for evaluation and scoring adaptation to local context”. Several comments proposed aligning faculty development with specific clinical specialties, such as critical care or emergency medicine, as in the suggestion to participate in “locally we need more training conferences and workshops in emergency and critical care”. Together, these perspectives underscore that faculty development programs should not only be evidence informed but also linguistically, culturally, and professionally tailored to the realities of Vietnamese institutions and their clinical partners.

Willingness to join the teaching team as a trainer

Interestingly, an additional optional question regarding participants’ willingness to serve as trainers revealed that over 75% expressed a positive interest, demonstrating a notable inclination among faculty to take on trainer roles. A follow-up question explored the specific teaching fields participants felt comfortable with, and the majority indicated a preference for teaching within their clinical specialties (e.g., dermatology, oncology, neurology). In contrast, only a small proportion of participants expressed interest in teaching developmental skills such as communication, leadership, management, and teaching methodologies.

Discussion

This study used the CIPP framework to guide the interpretation of faculty development needs and contextual factors. The results highlight specific priorities, barriers, and preferred formats that can inform the design of practical and contextually appropriate faculty development initiatives. In the discussion that follows, these findings are examined in relation to existing literature and regional experience to clarify how they contribute to ongoing efforts to strengthen health professions education in Vietnam and similar settings.

Context

At VinUniversity, faculty development takes place within the broader context of ongoing medical education reforms in Vietnam, which mirror regional efforts in Southeast Asia to strengthen educator capacity [5, 10]. A key finding from this study is the emphasis on engaging clinical faculty, with respondents underscoring their pivotal role in both UME and GME. This is consistent with previous work showing that clinical faculty worldwide struggle to balance teaching with patient care, particularly when time pressures and limited institutional support are prominent [13]. Steinert et al. likewise argue that clinical educators require tailored development opportunities to navigate these dual demands, a view that aligns with our qualitative comments calling for more targeted initiatives [1].

Financial barriers, reported by 36% of respondents, indicate that high course fees and limited funding are important obstacles to participation in faculty development. Addressing this challenge may require subsidized or free programs and an emphasis on low cost but effective delivery formats. This contrasts with findings by Samarasekera et al., who reported that funding was not a major constraint in countries such as Singapore, South Korea, Japan, and Indonesia, where more than 70% of medical schools benefit from strong internal and governmental support [5]. In other low- and middle-income settings, including Cambodia, financial limitations remain a critical barrier [9]. Despite these contextual differences, both studies highlight the importance of financial support for successful faculty development, either by reducing costs for individual participants or by ensuring program sustainability. In our setting, the absence of reported infrastructure barriers (0%) suggests that VinUniversity currently has strong technological and physical resources for faculty development, likely reflecting substantial institutional investment since its establishment in 2020 [12].

To enhance the quality of training, VinUniversity frequently invites international scholars to serve as trainers or facilitators. However, 31% of respondents identified language barriers as a challenge when programs are delivered in English, which is a notable concern in contexts where English is not the primary language. Although English is increasingly present in academic environments, limited proficiency can restrict faculty engagement in international courses and collaborations. This finding echoes prior research from Cambodia, where Lim et al. described English proficiency as a barrier to fully benefiting from global faculty development initiatives [9]. Samarasekera et al. also noted that language challenges across Asia Pacific countries can impede research and collaboration, suggesting a broader regional pattern [5]. Offering bilingual or Vietnamese supported programs may therefore be an important strategy to reduce linguistic barriers, increase inclusivity, and ensure that faculty development opportunities are accessible to a wider group of educators.

Input

The Input component focuses on understanding faculty needs and barriers to engagement in faculty development initiatives. In this study, faculty members expressed clear and diverse needs across teaching, research, and leadership domains. In teaching and learning, respondents emphasized the need for skills to deliver engaging theoretical lectures, design effective assessment tools, and teach evidence-based medicine principles. They also underscored the value of integrating active learning strategies, competency-based education principles, and constructive feedback into their practice. These priorities are consistent with global medical education trends, in which contemporary pedagogical approaches emphasize student centered learning and evidence informed instruction [1].

For research development, faculty highlighted the importance of building expertise in research methodology, conducting systematic literature reviews, and preparing competitive grant applications. They also prioritized engagement in international research collaborations and scientific manuscript publication. These needs reflect a growing academic focus on research productivity and global connectivity, similar to previous work in the region [5, 8].

Regarding leadership and management, respondents identified networking opportunities, leadership skills, and participation in international faculty development collaborations as critical areas. They also emphasized the importance of mental health and wellbeing, mirroring the increasing recognition of burnout and work life balance challenges in higher education worldwide. This aligns with literature that describes the multifaceted roles of modern educators, which extend beyond teaching to include leadership, collaboration, and self care [16].

The qualitative findings further enrich the Input perspective by illustrating how these needs and barriers are experienced in day to day academic and clinical work. Participants repeatedly noted that clinical and adjunct faculty are central to both undergraduate and graduate medical education, yet often have fewer structured opportunities for development and recognition than campus-based colleagues. Descriptions of difficulties balancing clinical workload, travel, and family responsibilities with teaching and scholarly expectations help explain why lack of time and limited institutional support were among the most frequently reported barriers. Respondents also described a strong desire for formal training in pedagogy, assessment, educational leadership, and international collaboration, which is consistent with the high priority assigned to evidence-based teaching and research skills in the quantitative data. Finally, calls to localize foreign training materials into Vietnamese, clarify evaluation criteria, and align faculty development with specific clinical specialties emphasize that future initiatives should be adapted to local contexts rather than directly transplanted from other settings.

Process

The Process component focuses on translating the identified needs and barriers into practical, evidence informed strategies and delivery methods for faculty development programs that are responsive to faculty constraints and preferences.

Flexible and accessible program formats

Time constraints emerged as a primary barrier to faculty development participation, particularly among faculty with substantial clinical and administrative responsibilities. Evidence from the literature supports the use of asynchronous online modules, blended learning models, and micro learning approaches to accommodate such constraints [13, 17]. Steinert et al. reported that workload and lack of protected time deterred participation among McGill University faculty, leading to calls for shorter, locally delivered sessions that fit better within clinical schedules [13, 17]. Similarly, Lim et al. highlighted how the late adoption of technology enhanced learning at Cambodia’s University of Health Sciences limited the reach of faculty development activities, suggesting that strong technological readiness can provide an advantage in implementing flexible formats [9]. In this context, VinUniversity’s existing digital infrastructure positions it well to develop accessible, technology supported faculty development programs that make effective use of asynchronous and blended models.

Needs-based design

Faculty emphasized practical skills in areas like assessment design, evidence-based medicine teaching, and research methodologies, necessitating FD programs that prioritize relevance and applicability. This resonates with Steinert et al. where non-participating faculty valued FD for teaching improvement but sought broader personal and career development, suggesting a need for holistic programming [13]. To meet these diverse expectations, FD initiatives must prioritize content that directly addresses faculty-identified challenges while integrating practical, actionable components. Evidence suggests that successful FD programs are tailored to specific educator needs and aligned with institutional goals [1]. For instance, workshops on active learning strategies or grant writing could integrate hands-on activities and real-world examples to enhance applicability.

Strengthening interdisciplinary and collaborative learning

Faculty expressed a notable interest in areas such as interprofessional education and international research collaborations. This highlights the need for programs that promote interdisciplinary and collaborative learning. This reflects global trends, with Steinert et al. advocating that FD should extend beyond teaching to promote cross-professional collaboration [1, 18]. Regionally, Tran et al. described interprofessional education as a key component of curriculum reform at the University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City, enhancing teamwork and communication [19]. To address these needs, evidence-based strategies include joint workshops and mentorship programs, which Steinert identified as effective for fostering cross-disciplinary engagement [8, 16]. International exchanges, supported by faculty feedback, align with Samarasekera et al.’s findings that such collaborations bolster research capacity [5, 19]. Prior studies affirm that these approaches enhance faculty satisfaction and institutional outcomes though challenges like language barriers and inadequate institutional support may require bilingual approaches [6].

Peer-led FD initiatives

Peer-led faculty development (FD) offers a cost-effective and impactful strategy to enhance engagement and learning. With a substantial proportion of faculty willing to serve as trainers, these initiatives harness internal expertise to deliver contextually relevant training aligned with institutional priorities [13]. Such programs foster collaboration, mutual support, and leadership development, reducing reliance on external resources. Evidence from Steinert suggests that peer coaching and mentorship, key components of peer-led FD, effectively promote professional growth [16]. Success hinges on structured approaches like train-the-trainer programs, focused skill-based sessions, and mentorship integration, with recognition and incentives sustaining trainer motivation [6].

Faculty preferences underscore hands-on training, workshops, and mentorship as favored delivery methods, reflecting a demand for interactive, experiential learning that directly applies to teaching and research contexts correlation with previous findings [2, 5]. In contrast, traditional lectures and peer learning groups are viewed as less effective, indicating they may fall short of meeting faculty needs for practical, engaged development [1, 2].

Product

This dimension discusses the anticipated outcomes of implementing targeted FD initiatives, focusing on enhanced faculty competencies and a broader institutional impact on HPE. Recent studies from our institution also underline the central role of faculty development. An evaluation of a pre-clerkship training course showed that preparatory development sessions for newly recruited clinical teachers were essential for delivering simulation-based teaching effectively, while a case study on modernized teaching tools and methods concluded that successful integration of new educational technologies depended on comprehensive, context sensitive faculty training and institutional support for professional development [20, 21].

Enhanced faculty competencies

 Targeted FD initiatives are expected to substantially improve faculty skills and capabilities across key areas: (i) Teaching Excellence: Faculty will acquire the tools and knowledge needed to deliver more engaging and effective theoretical lectures, design robust assessment tools, and implement active learning strategies. These enhanced skills are critical for aligning teaching practices with contemporary educational standards and student-centered learning approaches. (ii) Research Development: Programs aimed at building research methodology skills, grant writing expertise, and fostering international collaborations will empower faculty to produce higher-quality research. Strengthened research competencies are also anticipated to increase the institution’s research output and visibility in regional and global academic communities. (iii) Leadership and Management: Leadership-focused initiatives, including mentorship programs and interdisciplinary collaborations, will enable faculty to take on leadership roles effectively. These skills will foster a culture of continuous improvement and innovation within the institution.

Resource allocation priorities

Effective FD design hinges on strategic resource use. Flexible, asynchronous delivery will accommodate faculty schedules, boosting engagement [2, 6]. Content tailored to teaching, research, and leadership needs ensures relevance, while sustained funding mitigates financial barriers, promoting equitable access [2, 16].

Broader institutional impact

Targeted faculty development (FD) initiatives are poised to transform VinUniversity and extend benefits across the broader health professions education system. Enhanced faculty competencies will align with its mission to deliver world-class education and research, bolstering its commitment to innovation and excellence in health professions education [20]. By strengthening teaching and research skills, these efforts will elevate institution’s reputation within higher education. Moreover, they will establish a foundation for sustained growth and adaptability to evolving healthcare education demands [5]. As many faculty also teach at affiliated institutions, FD investments will extend benefits across the broader educational system, amplifying regional impact.

Limitations of the study and future directions

This study should be interpreted in light of several limitations. First, the use of a convenience sample from a single institutional network and a response rate of 34.6% may restrict the generalizability of the findings beyond this setting. This rate is lower than the average response rate of 44.1% reported for online surveys in published research [22], which likely reflects the practical difficulties of engaging busy clinical and adjunct faculty in voluntary electronic surveys. Non-respondents may therefore differ systematically from respondents, and those who chose to participate may have had greater interest or motivation regarding faculty development. Second, reliance on self-reported data introduces the possibility of response bias, as participants’ perceptions may not fully capture objective conditions or actual practices. Third, the cross-sectional and relatively brief nature of the survey limited more detailed exploration of issues such as preferred timing, duration, and format of development activities, which are important for operational planning.

Future research could address these constraints by employing multi-institutional and longitudinal designs, as well as more rigorous sampling strategies, to enhance representativeness and to observe changes over time. Incorporating in-depth qualitative methods and more granular questions about logistics and participation barriers, particularly for clinical and adjunct faculty, would provide a richer understanding of how faculty development initiatives can be designed, implemented, and refined in diverse institutional and regional contexts.

Conclusion

The study identified key faculty development priorities, challenges, and preferred strategies in College of Health Sciences, VinUniversity. Faculty placed particular importance on strengthening capacities in teaching evidence-based medicine, research methodology, and leadership, alongside an interest in international collaboration. At the same time, they reported substantial barriers to engagement, especially time constraints, financial limitations, and language difficulties, and expressed clear preferences for interactive, practice-oriented formats such as workshops and hands on training, as well as openness to serving as trainers themselves. These findings suggest that future faculty development initiatives should be contextually tailored, affordable, and linguistically accessible, with flexible scheduling and deliberate support for peer led models. Further work, including multi-institutional and longitudinal studies, is needed to examine how such programs can be implemented and to evaluate their impact on faculty practice and educational outcomes in similar settings.

Abbreviations

FD

Faculty Development

HPE

Health Professions Education

VinUni

VinUniversity

EBM

Evidence-Based Medicine

CIPP

Context-Input-Process-Product

GME

Graduate Medical Education

UME

Undergraduate Medical Education

Authors’ contributions

Thuy Minh Ha and Quang Thanh Nguyen were responsible for the original conceptualization, survey design, validation and methodology of the study. Thuy Minh Ha drafted the original manuscript. Hoang Viet Nguyen and Minh Quang Ngo contributed to data acquisition, data curation and analysis. Phuoc Van Le and Michelle Hermiston supported with resources, supervised and performed critical revisions of the manuscript. All authors have reviewed and approved the final manuscript for submission.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Data availability

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available to maintain the subjects’ confidentiality but will be made available by the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at VinUniversity (Approval No. 105/2024/QD-VMEC, dated October 1, 2024). Informed consent was electronically obtained from all participants prior to survey completion. Participants were informed about the purpose of the study, their right to withdraw at any time, and the measures taken to ensure privacy and data security.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Thuy Minh Ha, the first author of this manuscript, serves as a member of a Reviewer Community Board for Springer Nature. This role had no involvement in, or influence on, the peer-review process or editorial decision-making for this submission. The authors declare no other conflicts of interest.