An integrative review published in BMC Medical Education has mapped the factors that researchers have linked to faculty development processes and outcomes among novice and early-career health professions faculty, while cautioning that much of the underlying evidence was drawn from broader faculty populations rather than from studies focused specifically on these junior educators. The review, led by Mohammad Rajabpour and colleagues including Fatemeh Hajiabadi, Seyed Reza Mazloum and Maryam Bagheri, synthesized fifteen publications and organized the findings into five domains: individual, interpersonal, program-related, organizational, and contextual factors.

The team conducted the integrative review using the methodology described by Whittemore and Knafl and reported the work in accordance with PRISMA 2020. Six databases were searched from inception to March 2026: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, Embase, ERIC, and CINAHL Complete, alongside supplementary grey literature searches. The searches were carried out on 12 October 2026. Eligible publications included empirical studies, reviews, evidence syntheses, program evaluations, and conceptual papers relevant to the review question.

The scale of the screening effort was considerable. The search identified 26,455 records, of which 6,997 underwent title and abstract screening. Following full-text assessment, fifteen publications were included in the final synthesis. Methodological appraisal was undertaken using the relevant Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT 2018), as appropriate to publication type and study design, and the findings were interpreted in light of the appraisal results.

Within the individual domain, the synthesis identified motivation, self-efficacy, and reflective practice as factors reported in relation to faculty development. These are characteristics of the educators themselves, and the review treated them as part of a wider web of influences rather than as standalone determinants. The authors noted that further research is needed to clarify the roles of individual factors and how they relate to faculty development outcomes, particularly for novice and early-career faculty.

The interpersonal domain captured mentoring, peer support, networking, and communities of practice. These factors describe the social environment surrounding junior faculty as they develop as teachers, leaders, and scholars. The review’s conclusions highlighted the potential relevance of mentoring when designing faculty development initiatives, alongside sustained learning opportunities and institutional support. However, the authors framed this as a matter of potential relevance rather than established effectiveness for the target population.

Program-related factors included longitudinal approaches, experiential and workplace-based learning, and feedback. This suggests that the reviewed literature points to development activities that extend over time and are embedded in real work settings, rather than isolated one-off workshops, as features reported in connection with faculty development processes. Organizational factors, meanwhile, included leadership support, protected time, recognition of educational contributions, and access to resources, reflecting institutional conditions under which faculty development takes place.

The fifth domain covered contextual factors: organizational culture, infrastructure, local adaptation, and policy environments. These are the broader settings in which programs and institutions operate, and the review positioned them as a distinct layer of influence on faculty development processes and outcomes. Together with the organizational domain, this layer underscores that faculty development is not shaped solely by what individual educators do or by the design of the programs they attend.

One notable cross-cutting finding concerned professional identity formation. The synthesis identified it as a relevant concept across the included literature, but the authors were explicit that the available evidence did not establish it as an explanatory mechanism linking faculty development activities to subsequent outcomes. This distinction matters, because it separates a theme that appears in the literature from a demonstrated causal pathway, and the review resisted drawing that stronger inference.

The authors were equally direct about the limits of the evidence base. Much of the included evidence was derived from broader faculty populations rather than from studies focused specifically on novice and early-career faculty, and the indirectness and heterogeneity of the available evidence limit conclusions specific to these groups. The review therefore calls for further research focused explicitly on novice and early-career populations to clarify the roles of individual factors and institutional conditions and to examine how they relate to faculty development outcomes.

For medical educators and institutional leaders, the review offers a structured map of where reported influences on faculty development cluster, from the motivation and self-efficacy of individual educators to the policy environments surrounding their institutions. It also provides a reminder that faculty development is an important strategy for supporting teaching effectiveness, educational leadership, scholarly activity, and professional growth among health professions educators, while the evidence on what makes it succeed for those newest to the faculty role remains dispersed and, in the authors’ assessment, not yet specific enough to guide firm conclusions.

Subject of Research: Factors associated with faculty development processes and outcomes among novice and early-career health professions faculty

Article Title: Determinants of faculty development processes and outcomes among novice and early-career health professions faculty: an integrative review

Article References: Rajabpour, M., Hajiabadi, F., Mazloum, S. R., & Bagheri, M. (2026). Determinants of faculty development processes and outcomes among novice and early-career health professions faculty: an integrative review. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-10780-z

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12909-026-10780-z

Keywords: faculty development, health professions education, integrative review, novice faculty, early-career faculty, mentoring, professional identity, medical education, BMC Medical Education, evidence synthesis, Determinants, faculty