Medical school faculty plays a pivotal role in the academic health system. In addition to delivering education, conducting research, and providing clinical care, they shape the next generation of healthcare professionals while advancing the quality of patient care. However, these responsibilities are accompanied by substantial challenges, including heavy workloads, administrative demands, unclear expectations, and limited institutional support [1, 2]. Such stressors frequently lead to work–life imbalance, psychological distress, and burnout, compromising not only individual health and well-being but also educational quality, clinical performance, and institutional effectiveness [3–6].

Faculty well-being encompasses professional, mental, emotional, and physical health, and its significance for academic medicine is increasingly recognized. Higher levels of faculty well-being have been associated with greater engagement in teaching, increased research productivity, and improved clinical and educational outcomes. Conversely, lower levels of well-being have been associated with higher turnover, reduced academic productivity, and diminished teaching and clinical performance [7–9].

Interventions that prioritize faculty well-being have gained significance, particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic, which intensified the demands and pressures on medical school faculty members [10]. Several medical institutions have implemented interventions to promote and enhance faculty well-being, acknowledging the critical role of faculty in medical education and healthcare delivery. Interventions to promote well-being among medical faculty have ranged from individual-level strategies, such as mindfulness training, resilience workshops, or reflective practices, to organizational-level strategies, such as flexible scheduling, leadership support, and recognition initiatives [11–14]. Recent literature highlights the need for multilevel strategies that integrate personal resilience building with structural and cultural reforms, as faculty well-being cannot be sustained through individual coping alone. Despite these developments, the existing evidence remains fragmented and lacks comprehensive synthesis regarding intervention types, implementation contexts, and outcomes [11, 13, 14]. To our knowledge, no review has systematically synthesized and compared interventions specifically targeting faculty well-being in medical schools. This absence of consolidated evidence leaves educators, academic leaders, and policymakers without clear guidance for designing effective support strategies.

In contrast to earlier studies that aggregated findings across students, residents, and faculty, the present study specifically focuses on medical school faculty. Attention to medical school faculty is crucial given that they face distinct stressors such as academic promotion expectations, administrative workload, and heavy teaching obligations that are less prominent in learner populations and therefore require tailored interventions [1–4].

This scoping review systematically examines the nature and outcomes of published interventions designed to enhance faculty well-being in medical schools, thereby addressing a significant literature gap. This study aims to analyze the design, context, and reported effectiveness of a limited number of rigorously selected interventions. The objective is to produce actionable, evidence-based insights to help educators, academic leaders, and policymakers in developing strategies that support a sustainable and resilient academic workforce.

Given the expansive scope of the research questions and the variety of study designs and outcome measures in the literature, a scoping review methodology was considered suitable [15]. This review seeks to map out current interventions and identify prevalent themes, providing a comprehensive overview of the support for faculty well-being in medical schools. The methodological framework established by Arksey and O’Malley was utilized in this study. Compliance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist guidelines was ensured throughout the study [16].

To address the identified literature gap, the following research questions are proposed to perform a comprehensive literature review:

This scoping review aimed to identify and delineate the various interventions implemented by medical schools to enhance faculty well-being and mitigate burnout, with the objective of informing future strategies by highlighting effective approaches, common themes, and gaps in existing practice and research.

A systematic literature search was performed across three major electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (WoS), encompassing a broad range of health-related publications up to June 2025 (Table 2). The search strategy combined keywords related to “faculty,” “well-being,” and “medical schools” supplemented with relevant MeSH terms to enhance search sensitivity and identify appropriate search terms. Additionally, studies were manually identified by screening the reference lists of all relevant articles. A follow-up search was conducted six months after the initial search to ensure completeness and to capture any newly indexed or previously overlooked studies.

To eliminate duplicate entries, all records were imported into Zotero, a reference management software [17]. After eliminating duplicates, three reviewers (DDK, DK, KMG) independently screened titles and abstracts for publications on interventions aimed at faculty well-being in medical schools. Thereafter, full texts of relevant studies were reviewed on the basis of the established eligibility criteria, and only those satisfying the inclusion criteria were retained.

In-depth reviews of potentially eligible full texts were conducted, and the procedure was repeated with recording of eligible research for consistency (DDK, KMG). Studies that met the specified criteria were retained for data extraction, whereas those that did not were excluded, with documented reasons for exclusion. Further articles were identified by manually reviewing the reference lists of the included studies and pertinent reviews. Disagreements were resolved through discussion and consensus building among team members.

Data were extracting using a standardized Microsoft Excel template. A structured data-charting form was collaboratively developed by three reviewers to facilitate the systematic extraction of relevant variables from each included study. The charting form included the following fields [see Additional file 1]:

The charting form was pilot tested on a sample of three studies to ensure clarity, consistency, and relevance. Initial testing prompted minor adjustments to better capture nuances in intervention structure and reported outcomes.

The charting process was iterative, facilitating ongoing refinement and inclusion of supplementary data as required. Data were extracted from all included articles by two reviewers (DDK, DK) utilizing the finalized charting form. Any discrepancies or disagreements in the charted data were resolved through discussion and consensus, with a third reviewer (KMG) consulted as necessary to resolve any outstanding issues.

Of the 11 included studies, 3 (27%) employed randomized controlled trial (RCT) designs, 4 (36%) used mixed-methods approaches, and 4 (36%) adopted prospective pre–post designs without randomization. This distribution indicates that although RCTs were represented, most studies relied on either mixed-methods or non-randomized pre–post evaluations to assess intervention outcomes.

Approximately 500 faculty members participated across the 11 included studies, with sample sizes ranging from 12 to slightly more than 200. The participant populations encompassed various disciplines within academic medicine, including internal medicine, surgery, radiology, anesthesiology, and general academic faculty. The duration of the interventions varied from short digital programs to institutional improvements executed over the course of one year. A total of 7 studies (64%) were short-term interventions lasting 8–12 weeks, whereas 4 studies (36%) were long-term interventions extending 12–24 months. Self-reported measures were predominantly used in the collection of information, whereas other studies supplemented survey data with qualitative interviews, focus groups, or institutional metrics such as retention and job satisfaction [see Additional file 1].

The studies used various instruments to evaluate faculty well-being across several domains. A summary of the measurement instruments, targeted well-being outcomes, and principal findings for each study is presented in Table 3.

Across the 11 included studies, burnout emerged as the most frequently assessed outcome, reported in 8 studies (73%), typically measured using validated instruments such as the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), the Mini-Z Survey, or the Stanford Physician Wellness Survey. Stress and resilience were evaluated in 6 studies (55%), most commonly with the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), Brief Resilience Scale (BRS), or Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Positive psychological constructs, including gratitude, life satisfaction, professional fulfillment, positive affect, and mindfulness, were assessed in 5 studies (45%), reflecting a shift toward fostering well-being–enhancing states rather than focusing solely on burnout reduction. Institutional-level indicators, such as job satisfaction, quality of life (QoL), perceived workload control, and electronic health record (EHR) burden, were also measured in 5 studies (45%), highlighting efforts to capture systemic and organizational dimensions of faculty well-being.

Among the 11 studies, 1 used a pre–post survey without a fully validated well-being instrument. Although methodologically limited, it was included for its relevance, clear faculty focus, targeted intervention, and pre/post comparison. The survey assessed constructs such as burnout, QoL, and stress, enabling meaningful interpretation; however, its inclusion is a methodological limitation [12].

Overall, 55% (6/11) of the studies reported statistically significant improvements in burnout or related well-being outcomes, whereas 27% (3/11) demonstrated non-significant but favorable trends, and 18% (2/11) showed no improvement or even worsening of scores. The strongest and most durable effects were observed in organizational-level interventions, which reduced burnout by 20% to 25%. For example, workflow redesign in an academic general medicine clinic decreased burnout prevalence from 56% to 31% (p = 0.04) and stress from 88% to 63% (p = 0.02), whereas a closed-loop feedback system in a family medicine division reduced burnout from 48% to 25% and increased perceived workload control from 10% to 42% (p = 0.011).

In contrast, individual-level interventions—including transcendental meditation, gratitude journaling, positive intelligence training, or mindfulness-based curricula—produced measurable gains in secondary outcomes such as resilience, mindfulness, or positive intelligence scores. Statistically significant improvements were observed in QoL (p = 0.03), perceived stress (p = 0.05), and positive intelligence scores (p = 0.004). However, these benefits did not consistently translate into significant reductions in burnout, and in some cases (e.g., radiology departmental initiatives), self-reported burnout remained unchanged or worsened despite multiple well-being activities.

Peer- and group-based programs, such as storytelling and origin-sharing groups, achieved high engagement (with ~ 50% participation among eligible faculty) and generated qualitative evidence of enhanced collegiality, interpersonal trust, and empowerment. However, quantitative burnout indices showed little or no measurable improvement.

Taken together, the evidence indicates that individual and peer-level programs provide short-term psychological benefits and social connectedness, whereas systemic and organizational reforms, particularly when addressing workload, scheduling, and institutional culture, yield the most substantial and statistically robust improvements.

A formal critical appraisal or risk-of-bias assessment was not conducted because this scoping review focused on mapping the range and nature of interventions rather than assessing the methodological quality of the intervention studies. Emphasis was placed on documenting the variety of intervention types and associated outcomes to generate insights that can guide future research and institutional practice.

The interventions were thematically categorized into four groups: individual-level, peer/group-based, organizational-level, and multilevel interventions, highlighting the complexity and comprehensive nature of institutional well-being strategies (Table 4).

Three studies conducted interventions that targeted individual faculty members using cognitive, behavioral, or emotional self-regulation strategies. Loiselle et al. [19] evaluated the impact of transcendental meditation on academic physicians, reporting statistically significant decreases in burnout and depressive symptoms. Gold et al. [20] implemented a digital gratitude intervention, “Three Good Things,” which resulted in enhancements in self-reported emotional exhaustion and perceived well-being. Spilg et al. [22] assessed the Stress Management and Resilience Training (SMART) program within the implementation of a new health information system, demonstrating improvements in psychological flexibility and resilience. These studies predominantly utilized self-report instruments, including the MBI and PSS, and consistently demonstrated modest but significant enhancements in indicators of personal well-being.

Two studies examined the impact of social and relational interventions designed to enhance community and foster shared meaning. Nutting et al. [24] developed a storytelling-based group model that enhanced faculty identity and connection through reflective peer dialogue. Bhat et al. [18] evaluated positive intelligence group coaching sessions for academic surgeons, revealing both qualitative and quantitative enhancements in stress regulation, teamwork, and morale. The interventions highlighted emotional expression and peer support as protective factors that mitigate burnout and isolation within academic settings.

Four studies examined systemic or institutional factors contributing to faculty distress by implementing structural or leadership-based strategies. Lee et al. and Jones et al. documented benefits from redesigning workflows and schedules, which reduced after-hours workload and improved perceptions of work–life balance [23, 26]. Locke et al. [25] implemented a structured wellness champion model that created feedback loops between faculty and departmental leaders, thereby strengthening communication, responsiveness, and trust. Similarly, Ivan et al. [21] introduced department-wide initiatives focused on leadership accountability and burnout education. These studies primarily relied on pre- and post-intervention surveys to assess outcomes, with a focus on burnout, satisfaction, or engagement. Although differing in scope and design, the interventions demonstrated measurable improvements in at least one dimension of faculty well-being.

Two interventions incorporated strategies across the individual, peer, and organizational levels. Riley et al. [5] developed a junior faculty development program that combined mentorship, skill-building workshops, and career planning resources. Contrastingly, Pipas et al. [12] developed a comprehensive curriculum that engaged both students and faculty, emphasizing mutual wellness promotion through reflective practices, shared dialogue, and systems thinking. The programs demonstrated positive outcomes, including reductions in burnout, as well as improvements in professional fulfillment and institutional commitment, with notable benefits among early-career and underrepresented faculty.

Faculty well-being has become a critical concern in academic medicine, reflecting its direct impact on educational quality, institutional performance, and healthcare delivery. Burnout, as conceptualized by Maslach and Jackson, encompasses emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and diminished personal accomplishment [27]. This framework, subsequently supported by Maslach et al. [28], conceptualizes burnout as a sustained reaction to persistent workplace stress. Medical school faculty balancing clinical, educational, research, and administrative roles are particularly vulnerable to these stressors. Although the World Health Organization classified burnout as an “occupational phenomenon” in 2019, acknowledging its association with unmanaged workplace demands, the organization did not consider it a medical diagnosis [29]. As Eastman highlighted, addressing faculty burnout requires not only individual coping strategies but also institutional support in the form of protected time, sufficient resources, and a culture that values emotional sustainability [30]. Increasingly, evidence highlights the link between faculty well-being and institutional outcomes: faculty with higher levels of well-being demonstrate greater productivity, student engagement, and professional satisfaction, whereas those with lower levels of well-being demonstrate higher turnover, lower performance, and reduced learner outcomes [2, 31].

This review highlights the diversity and complexity of intervention strategies ranging from individual-focused approaches to systemic organizational reforms. Despite methodological heterogeneity, most studies reported improvements in at least one domain of faculty well-being. Importantly, a growing consensus indicates that interventions targeting only individual coping skills yield short-term benefits but are insufficient without concurrent institutional change. These results emphasize the need for multilevel strategies that address both personal resilience and systemic drivers of burnout.

Individual-level interventions were among the most commonly reported well-being interventions. Loiselle et al. [19] tested the efficacy of transcendental meditation, a silent mantra-based meditation practice, in reducing burnout and depressive symptoms among academic physicians. Gold et al. [20] evaluated a digital gratitude journaling exercise (“Three Good Things”) in which participants recorded three positive experiences daily, leading to improved mood and positive affect. Spilg et al. [22] implemented the SMART program, a structured curriculum that teaches mindfulness, cognitive reframing, and relaxation techniques, which enhanced stress regulation during a demanding health system transition. Other studies, such as expressive writing interventions, emphasize structured reflective writing as a therapeutic strategy to process emotions and strengthen resilience [32]. Although these methods demonstrated measurable benefits, their effects often diminished without parallel organizational reforms addressing workload and cultural barriers [33].

Peer- and group-based interventions emphasized social connectedness, recognition, and professional identity. Nutting et al. [24] introduced storytelling groups in which faculty members shared personal narratives in a facilitated setting, thereby fostering reflection and stronger community bonds. Bhat et al. [18] tested positive intelligence group coaching, a program using guided discussions and cognitive exercises to build mental fitness and teamwork, resulting in reduced stress and improved morale. Radico et al. [34] evaluated a structured peer recognition program that encouraged colleagues to acknowledge one another’s contributions, which enhanced collegiality and engagement.

These findings are consistent with broader theoretical and empirical evidence. Schaufeli’s Job Demands–Resources model [13] emphasizes that access to social resources, such as peer support and collegial recognition, helps buffer the impact of high work demands. Maslach et al.’, conceptualization of burnout [28] highlights depersonalization as a core dimension, which can be mitigated by fostering interpersonal connection and community. Eastman [30] further argued that institutional strategies to prevent faculty burnout should prioritize collegiality and emotional sustainability, underscoring the role of recognition and peer support as protective factors. Taken together, these perspectives suggest that peer-level interventions not only improve morale in the short term but also build the relational resilience necessary for long-term faculty well-being. [13, 28, 30].

Organizational-level interventions targeted systemic stressors and produced more sustained benefits. Lee et al. [26] implemented workflow redesign in a general medicine clinic, reducing documentation burden and improving work–life balance. Locke et al. [25] developed a “wellness champions” initiative, in which designated faculty served as liaisons between staff and leadership to communicate needs and shape departmental policies. Ip et al. [21] introduced a department-wide program among radiologists, emphasizing leadership accountability, resource allocation, and structured wellness education. Jones et al. [23] restructured the schedules of acute care surgery to allow more predictable time off, which significantly decreased emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. Such organizational efforts, which often involve structural changes in workload and communication, consistently improved well-being and institutional trust.

Smaller initiatives illustrate the value of symbolic institutional support. Olson et al. [35] created Well-Being Education Grants, offering modest institutional funds for self-selected activities such as mindfulness classes, arts, or coaching. Dobkin and Velez [36] implemented a gifted well-being course that combined mindfulness training with peer reflection groups, described by participants as both supportive and community building. Although relatively low-cost, these interventions conveyed institutional commitment regardless of whether their long-term impact was limited without broader reforms.

Multilevel interventions that combine individual, peer, and organizational components, produce the most comprehensive outcomes. Riley et al. [5] designed a junior faculty development program that integrated mentorship, workshops, and career planning, helping early-career academics build skills and reduce burnout. Pipas et al. [12] implemented a faculty–student wellness curriculum combining joint mindfulness practice, reflection, and dialogue, which fostered a shared culture of well-being.

Complementary evidence supports similar strategies. Van Dyke et al. [9] developed faculty development pathways embedding well-being principles into promotion and leadership training, reinforcing sustainability. Tucker Edmonds et al. [37] introduced PLUS (Program to Launch Underrepresented in Medicine Success), a leadership initiative offering mentorship, skills building, and institutional advocacy for URiM faculty, improving retention and visibility. Other multimodal initiatives, such as ASPIRE [38], which promoted clinician-educator scholarship and community building, and GIM mentorship programs [39], which supported career advancement and scholarly productivity, demonstrated similar integrative effects. Collectively, these programs strengthened retention, professional identity, and institutional commitment, highlighting that career development, recognition, and systemic support are essential components of faculty well-being.

Programs launched during COVID-19 further emphasized the potential of collective action. Shroff and Mehta [10] developed “Well-being Convene,” inclusive virtual wellness sessions for faculty, staff, residents, and students to enhance coping and social connection during the pandemic. Although effective in crisis support, these initiatives also highlighted the necessity of addressing systemic workload pressures and cultural barriers to ensure sustainability.

Taken together, the evidence suggest that although individual and peer-level strategies provide valuable short-term benefits, long-term improvement in faculty well-being requires organizational and multilevel reforms. The most promising approaches are those that align daily responsibilities with meaningful work, integrate recognition and equity, and embed wellness within institutional structures. Across the reviewed studies, a consistent message emerges: faculty well-being must be prioritized as a structural and leadership responsibility, integrated into policy and leadership accountability frameworks, rather than treated as an optional or supplemental initiative.

This scoping review highlights the increasing recognition of faculty well-being as a central concern in academic medicine. Although individual strategies such as mindfulness, reflection, and gratitude can provide short-term benefits, their effectiveness is amplified when combined with organizational measures addressing culture, workload, leadership, and recognition. Programs that foster peer support, strengthen professional identity, and align work with personal meaning are particularly effective for sustaining engagement.

Despite the methodological limitations across the reviewed studies, the evidence consistently highlights the need for multilevel, systemic approaches aimed at improving faculty well-being. Embedding faculty well-being into institutional policies, organizational structures, and leadership practices is essential for achieving a lasting impact. The most promising interventions combine organizational accountability with individual development, thus offering a pathway to a more resilient and engaged academic workforce.