Table 2.
Comparison of attitudes categorized by favorable versus unfavorable chairs.
| Characteristic | Overall response, n (%) (n=59)a |
Favorable group,b n (%) (n=19) |
Unfavorable group,c
n (%) (n=40) |
P |
| Male | 47 (80) | 14 (74) | 33 (83) | .50 |
| Medicine department | 26/58 (45) | 12 (63) | 14/39 (36) | .09 |
| Have a clinician-educator pathway | 54 (92) | 19 (100) | 35 (88) | .17 |
| Educational scholarship important or very important for promotion | 52 (88) | 18 (95) | 34 (85) | .41 |
| Serving on editorial boards of e-learning tools important or very important | 27/58 (47) | 15 (79) | 12/39 (31) | <.001 |
| Aware of faculty bloggers in department | 21 (36) | 11 (58) | 10 (25) | .02 |
| Promotion and tenure form has field for blogging and e-learning | 26/58 (45) | 9 (47) | 17/39 (44) | >.99 |
| Effort contributing to a journal-based blog important or very important | 14 (24) | 10 (53) | 4 (10) | <.001 |
| Believe most journal-based blogs are peer reviewed | 13/55 (24) | 6/18 (33) | 7/37 (19) | .31 |
| Believe journal-based blogs disseminate knowledge | 48/57 (84) | 17 (89) | 31/38 (82) | .70 |
| Prefer contributions to journal blogs | 43 (73) | 13 (68) | 30 (75) | .76 |
| Prefer contribution to society blogs | 22 (37) | 10 (53) | 12 (30) | .15 |
| Prefer contribution to personal blogs | 1 (2) | 0 (0) | 1 (3) | >.99 |
a Respondents who failed to answer e-learning leadership question were removed from analysis. Likewise, respondents who answered leadership but did not answer question as outlined on the rows were not included in analysis.
b E-learning leadership considered very important/important.
c E-learning leadership considered somewhat important/not important.