Full-Time Faculty in Clinical and Basic Science Departments by Sex and Underrepresented in Medicine Status: A 40-Year Review

Gender and Pathways to Leadership in Academic Anesthesiology: A Qualitative Content Analysis of US Chairpersons' Curricula Vitae

BACKGROUND

Women are underrepresented in medicine and academic anesthesiology, and especially in leadership positions. We sought to characterize career achievement milestones of female versus male academic anesthesiology chairs to understand possible gender-related differences in pathways to leadership.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational cross-sectional analysis. In November 2019, curricula vitae (CVs) were requested from then-current members of the US Association of Academic Anesthesiology Chairs. Data reflecting accomplishments up to the time of chair appointment were systematically extracted from CVs and analyzed using a mixed methods approach with qualitative content analysis supplemented by descriptive statistics and bivariate statistical testing. Missing data were not imputed.

RESULTS

Seventy-two CVs were received from eligible individuals (response rate 67.3%). The respondent sample was 12.5% women (n = 9), 87.5% men (n = 63), and no transgender or nonbinary people; this is similar to the known gender balance in anesthesiology chairs in the United States. No statistically significant differences in objective markers of academic achievement at the time of chair appointment were evident for female versus male chairs, including time elapsed between the first faculty appointment and assumption of the chair role (median 25 vs 18 years, P = .06), number of publications at the time the chair was assumed (101 vs 69, P = .28), or proportion who had ever held a National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant as principal investigator (44.4% vs 25.4%, 0.25). Four phenotypes of career paths were discernible in the data: the clinician-administrator, the educator, the investigator, and the well-rounded scholar; these did not differ by gender.

CONCLUSIONS

Female chairpersons who were members of the Association of Academic Anesthesiology Chairs in the United States demonstrated similar patterns of academic achievement as compared to male chairpersons at the time the position of chair was assumed, suggesting that they were equally qualified for the role as compared to men. Four patterns of career achievements were evident in the chairperson group, suggesting multiple viable pathways to this leadership position.

Leadership in Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion: What Skills and Attributes Are Documented in the Literature?

OBJECTIVES

Equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) leadership has recently been scrutinized, and many institutions have had to repurpose EDI leaders due to recent legislation. The skills or attributes of EDI leaders are not well understood. The authors sought to identify skills or attributes associated with EDI leaders.

METHODS

The authors searched the PubMed database using the search terms "Diversity," "Equity," "Inclusion," "Leadership," "Chief diversity officer," "Diversity leadership skills," and "Diversity officer." The authors then reviewed titles, abstracts, and papers to identify the skills or attributes of EDI leaders.

RESULTS

The search yielded 580 items. The authors analyzed the 10 remaining papers after the abstract, title, and paper review. All of the authors reviewed the articles and constructed the following list of skills: motivating others, fostering potential, inspiring trust, thinking strategically, setting goals and expectations, giving feedback, and being authentic.

DISCUSSION

EDI leaders are well equipped for leadership in other spaces because the skills and attributes identified in this review are transferrable to assistant and associate dean positions, chair positions, and other leadership positions in academic medicine. Individual EDI leaders can use these documented skills and attributes to reposition their leadership in this ever-changing political environment. Institutional leaders also can use this information to retain talented EDI leaders in influential leadership positions.

Upholding our PROMISE: Increased representation is not enough to foster belonging in graduate medical education

PURPOSE

Sense of belonging supports academic achievement and encourages career endurance. The purpose of this study was to characterize what individual and institutional factors influence one's sense of belonging by describing the experiences of underrepresented in medicine (UIM) paediatric and internal medicine-paediatric residents in the United States.

METHOD

The authors conducted a national survey of paediatric and internal medicine-paediatric residents. The 23-item anonymous web-based survey was distributed between October 2020 and January 2021 and included questions on socio-demographic characteristics and individual perceptions on sense of belonging, value, common mission or values at a program or institution and respect. The authors used linear mixed models and fitted regression models to examine individual factors and environmental factors that impact sense of belonging, value and respect.

RESULTS

Across 29 residency programs, 938 (53%) of 1748 residents completed the survey. One hundred sixty-seven (18%) self-identified as UIM. UIM residents had a lower sense of belonging than non-UIM residents [mean (SD) 3.6 (0.87) vs. 4.0 (0.57)]. Black/AA and Hispanic/Latinx residents had the lowest sense of belonging [3.5 (0.82) and 2.8 (0.93), respectively]. UIM residents demonstrated decreased sense of belonging in programs that lacked bias training and where peers discriminated against them. Sense of belonging was increased in programs where they perceived a sense of support, respect or values alignment. Surprisingly, individual UIM resident sense of belonging was not improved by having more UIM residents in a program.

CONCLUSION

UIM paediatric residents experience a decreased sense of belonging during training. Programs can support sense of belonging for UIM residents by demonstrating respect and support for them and by offering systems for bias training and reporting bias and discrimination. Recruiting a greater number of UIM trainees remains important; however, compositional diversity alone does not improve a sense of belonging for UIM residents. There is continued need for structural/institutional change, including addressing institutional culture and structural racism.

Gender diversity in pediatric surgery: academic ranks and scholarly productivity amongst pediatric surgeons

Purpose

Despite a growing number of women entering medical school, a small proportion of women pursue surgical specialties, including pediatric surgery. This multi-center study assesses gender-based differences in measures of scholarly productivity and distribution of faculty positions.

Methods

This is a retrospective web-based study of all pediatric surgeons at twelve large institutions across the United States. Data published by the American Association of Medical Colleges was compiled and analyzed to understand the gender distributions of medical students, general surgery residents, and pediatric surgery fellows. P-values were calculated using two-sided Student's independent t-tests and chi-squared tests.

Results

There have been a growing number of women applying into pediatric surgery, but the proportion of women matriculating into these fellowships is not concordant. Women are still underrepresented (28%) amongst the pediatric surgeon workforce. A total of 111 pediatric surgeons were identified for this study, which included 31 women (28%) and 80 males (72%). There was a significant difference in the distribution across academic ranks between genders (p < 0.001). Women had significantly fewer publications per year after residency, fewer total publications, and a lower h-index in comparison to men (p < .001, p = .005, p = .002, respectively).

Conclusions

Women are not only underrepresented in pediatric surgery, but there are also significant differences in the distribution of faculty positions and scholarly productivity when comparing men and women. There is a pressing need to improve gender diversity and identify barriers that may prevent women from advancing to leadership positions and achieving professional success.

Summer undergraduate biomedical research program for underrepresented minority students in a rural, low-income state

Introduction

Diversity can enhance the agenda and quality of biomedical research, but a dearth of underrepresented minorities and women serve as biomedical researchers. The study purpose was to examine the impact of the a summer undergraduate research program on self-efficacy in research, scientific communication, and leadership as well as scientific identity, valuing objectives of the scientific community, and intent to pursue a biomedical research career.

Methods

Underrepresented minority and female undergraduate students participated in a mentored research experience in a rural, low-income state.

Results

Students' self-efficacy in research, scientific communication, and leadership as well as scientific identity, valuing objectives of the scientific community, and intent to pursue a biomedical research career increased post-program compared to pre-program.

Conclusion

This study supports implementation of a biomedical summer undergraduate research program for URM and women in a poor, rural, settings.

Diversity in Academic Obstetrics and Gynecology

Institutional transformation and moving diversity from the periphery to the core of excellence have increased the representation of both female and racial and ethnic minoritized populations in academic obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN). Enabling the recruitment and retention of diverse residents and faculty, measuring their contributions to the department academic and social missions, and providing a supportive environment will be important in the coming years as the changing OB/GYN workforce progresses through their careers.

Are committee experiences of minoritized family medicine faculty part of the minority tax? a qualitative study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Because much of the work in academic medicine is done by committee, early career URiM faculty, are often asked to serve on multiple committees, including diversity work that may not be recognized as important. They may also be asked to serve on committees to satisfy a diversity "check box," and may be asked more often than their non-URiM peers to serve in this capacity. We sought to describe the committee experiences of early career URiM faculty, hypothesizing that they may see committee service as a minority tax.

METHODS

Participants in the Leadership through Scholarship Fellowship (LTSF) were asked to share their experiences with committee service in their careers after participating in a faculty development discussion. Their responses were analyzed and reported using qualitative, open, axial, and abductive reasoning methods.

RESULTS

Four themes, with eight sub-themes (in parenthesis), emerged from the content analysis of the LTSF fellows responses to the prompt: Time commitment (Timing of committee work and lack of protected time for research and scholarship), URiM Committee service (Expectation that URiM person will serve on committees and consequences for not serving), Mentoring issues (no mentoring regarding committee service, faculty involvement is lacking and the conflicting nature of committee work) and Voice (Lack of voice or acknowledgement).

CONCLUSIONS

Early career URiM faculty reported an expectation of serving on committees and consequences for not serving related to their identity, but other areas of committee service they shared were not connected to their URiM identity. Because most of the experiences were not connected to the LTSF fellows' URiM identity, this group has identified areas of committee service that may affect all early career faculty. More research is necessary to determine how committee service affects URiM and non-URiM faculty in academic family medicine.

Diversifying the Medical Pathway in a Post-Affirmative Action World

This Viewpoint discusses a pathway toward individual, institutional, professional, and societal actions to increase the number of underrepresented individuals in medicine within the medical workforce in a “post–affirmative action” landscape.

Diversity in the pediatric research workforce: a scoping review of the literature

The purpose of this scoping review is to determine trends in racial and ethnic representation, identify barriers and facilitators to greater diversity, and assess strategies and interventions to advance diversity among those in the pediatric research workforce in the U.S. We conducted a scoping review of PubMed supplemented with the authors' personal library of papers published from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2021. To be eligible, papers had to provide original data, be published in English, report information from a U.S. healthcare institution, and report on outcomes of interest relevant to the child health field. The diversity of faculty has modestly increased over the past decade but reflects a worsening representation compared to overall population trends. This slow increase reflects a loss of diverse faculty and has been referred to as a "leaky pipeline." Strategies to plug the "leaky pipeline" include greater investments in pipeline programs, implementation of holistic review and implicit bias training, development of mentoring and faculty programs targeted to diverse faculty and trainees, alleviation of burdensome administrative tasks, and creation of more inclusive institutional environments. Modest improvements in the racial and ethnic diversity of the pediatric research workforce were identified. However, this reflects worsening overall representation given changing U.S. population demographics. IMPACT: Racial and ethnic diversity in the pediatric research workforce has shown modest increases but worsening overall representation. This review identified barriers and facilitators at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and institutional levels that impact BIPOC trainees and faculty career advancement. Strategies to improve the pathway for BIPOC individuals include greater investments in pipeline and educational programs, implementation of holistic review admissions and bias training, institution of mentoring and sponsorship, alleviation of burdensome administrative responsibilities, and creation of inclusive institutional climates. Future studies should rigorously test the effects of interventions and strategies designed to improve diversity in the pediatric research workforce.

Asserting Accountability to Address Diversity: Report Card as a System of Measurement

Problem

To the best of our knowledge, there are no standard accountability measures for diversity efforts at the departmental level. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to evaluate a multiprong report card as a structure for evaluation, tracking, and reporting as well as to examine any relationships between expenditures and outcomes.

Approach

We instituted an intervention that offered leadership a report card of metrics related to diversity efforts. Included are diversity expenditures, benchmark demographic and departmental data, applications to support faculty salaries, participation in clerkship programs focused on attracting diverse candidates, and requests for candidate lists. The purpose of this analysis is to demonstrate the impact of the intervention.

Outcomes

A significant relationship was found between faculty funding applications and under-represented minority (URM) representation in a department (0.19; confidence interval [95% CI] 0.17-0.21; p<0.001). An association was also found between total expenditures and URM representation in a department (0.002; 95% CI 0.002-0.003; p<0.001). Other outcomes include the following: (1) women, URM, and minority faculty have all increased in representation since tracking began; (2) diversity expenditures and faculty opportunity fund and presidential professorship applications have increased over time; and (3) a steady decline in departments with zero URM representation after the tracking of diversity expenditures in both clinical and basic science departments.

Next Steps

Our findings suggest that standardized metrics for inclusion and diversity initiatives promote accountability and buy-in from executive leadership. Departmental detail enables tracking of progress longitudinally. Future work will continue to evaluate the downstream effects of diversity expenditures.

Gender and Geographic Origin as Determinants of Manuscript Publication Outcomes: JBMR® Bibliometric Analysis from 2017 to 2019

The Journal of Bone and Mineral Research (JBMR®), the flagship journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR), enjoys a premiere position in its field and has a global reach. The journal uses a single-blind peer-review process whereby three editors are typically involved in assessing each submission for publication, in addition to external reviewers. Although emphasizing fairness, rigor, and transparency, this process is not immune to the influence of unconscious biases. The gender and geographic diversity of JBMR® authors, editors, and reviewers has increased over the last three decades, but whether such diversity has affected peer-review outcomes is unknown. We analyzed manuscript acceptance rates based on the gender and geographic origin of authors, reviewers, and Associate Editors. The analysis included 1662 original research articles submitted to JBMR® from September 2017 through December 2019. Gender was assigned using probabilities from an online tool and manually validated through internet searches. Predictor variables of manuscript outcome were determined with multivariate logistic regression analysis. The acceptance rate was highest when the first and last authors were of different genders, and lowest when both authors were men. Reviewer gender did not influence the outcome regardless of the genders of the first and last authors. Associate Editors from all geographical regions tended to select reviewers from their same region. The acceptance rate was highest when the Associate Editor was from Europe. Manuscripts with authors from North America and Australia/New Zealand had greater overall odds of acceptance than those from Europe and Asia. Manuscripts reviewed only by Editorial Board (EB) members had a lower acceptance rate than those refereed by non-EB reviewers or a mix of EB and non-EB reviewers. Overall, the geographical origin of authors, reviewers, and editors, as well as reviewers' EB membership may influence manuscript decisions. Yet, the JBMR® peer-review process remains largely free from gender bias. © 2022 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Institutional Variability in Representation of Women and Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups Among Medical School Faculty

Importance

Bolstering the ranks of women and underrepresented groups in medicine (URM) among medical faculty can help address ongoing health care disparities and therefore constitutes a critical public health need. There are increasing proportions of URM faculty, but comparisons of these changes with shifts in regional populations are lacking.

Objective

To quantify the representation of women and URM and assess changes and variability in representation by individual US medical schools.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cross-sectional study assessed US medical school faculty rosters for women and URM, including American Indian and Alaska Native, Black, Hispanic, and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander faculty. US allopathic medical schools participating in the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Faculty Administrative Management Online User System from 1990 to 2019 (updated December 31 for each year), were included. Faculty data were analyzed from yearly cross-sections updated as of December 31 for each year from 1990 to 2019. For census data, decennial census data were used for years 1990, 2000, and 2010. Intercensal estimates were used for all other years from 1990 to 2019.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Trends and variability in representation quotient (RQ), defined as representation of a group within an institution's faculty compared to its respective US county.

Results

There were 121 AAMC member institutions (72 076 faculty) in 1990, which increased to 144 institutions (184 577 faculty) in 2019. The median RQ of women faculty increased from 0.42 (IQR, 0.37-0.46) to 0.80 (IQR, 0.74-0.89) (slope, +1.4% per year; P < .001). The median RQ of Black faculty increased from 0.10 (IQR, 0.06-0.22) to 0.22 (IQR, 0.14-0.41) (slope, +0.5% per year; P < .001), but remained low. In contrast, the median RQ of Hispanic faculty decreased from 0.44 (IQR, 0.19-1.22) to 0.34 (IQR, 0.23-0.62) (slope, -1.7% per year; P < .001) between 1990 and 2019. Absolute total change in RQ of URM showed an increase; however, the 30-year slope did not differ from zero (+0.1% per year; P = .052). Although RQ of women faculty increased for most institutions (127 [88.2%]), large variability in URM faculty trends were observed (57 institutions [39.6%] with increased RQ and 10 institutions [6.9%] with decreased RQ). Nearly one-quarter of institutions shifted from the top to bottom 50th percentile institutional ranking by URM RQ with county vs national comparisons.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that representation of women in academic medicine improved with time, while URM overall experienced only modest increases with wide variability across institutions. Among URM, the Hispanic population has lost representational ground. County-based population comparisons provide new insights into institutional variation in representation among medical school faculty.

For us by us: Instituting mentorship models that credit minoritized medical faculty expertise and lived experience

The woefully low proportion of scientists and clinicians underrepresented in medicine (UIM), including members of African-American/Black, Hispanic/Latinx, American Indian/Alaska Native or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander communities, is well characterized and documented. Diversity in medicine is not only just, but it improves quality and outcomes. Yet, diversity in academic medicine remains stagnant, despite national recognition and urgent calls to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion across health sciences. One strategy that has shown to improve diversity in many sectors is high quality mentoring. While many institutions have adopted mentoring programs, there remains a lack of mentorship that is equitable, individualized, and sets a clear timeline for academic milestones that will position UIM mentees at the optimal trajectory for promotion and retention. A barrier to assembling these programs is the small number of UIM among the senior faculty ranks who are able to serve in this role, given the disproportionate burden to serve on a multitude of academic committees, task forces, and workgroups to fulfill institutional mandates to diversify representation. These time-consuming services, documented in the literature as the "minority tax," are generally uncompensated and unaccounted for in terms of consideration for promotion, leadership positions, and other measures of career advancement. The Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Academic Mentors (JAM) Council represents a novel, culturally responsive, and anti-racist approach to achieve a more equitable and inclusive institutional environment. This approach strategically leverages the intergenerational wisdom and experience of senior UIM faculty via time-protected effort with the overall goals of improving rates of promotion, retention, and career satisfaction of early career UIM colleagues. This community case study describes the rationale, resources needed, processes, and proposed workflow required to launch the JAM Council, as well as the major roles and responsibilities for JAM mentors and mentees, which may be considered by academic medical centers focused on improving diversity among the faculty ranks.

Curricula, Teaching Methods, and Success Metrics of Clinician-Scientist Training Programs: A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

To describe the literature on clinician-scientist training programs to inform the development of contemporary and inclusive training models.

METHOD

The authors conducted a scoping review, searching the PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Embase databases from database inception until May 25, 2020. Studies presenting primary research that described and evaluated clinician-scientist training programs were identified for data abstraction. On the basis of deductive and inductive methods, information about program characteristics, curricula, teaching strategies, and success metrics was extracted. The extracted variables were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

From the initial 7,544 citations retrieved and 4,974 unique abstracts screened, 81 studies were included. Of the 81 included studies, 65 (80.2%) were published between 2011 and 2020, 54 (66.7%) were conducted in the United States, and 64 (79.0%) described programs that provided broad clinician-scientist training. Few programs provided funding or protected research time or specifically addressed needs of trainees from underrepresented minority groups. Curricula emphasized research methods and knowledge dissemination, whereas patient-oriented research competencies were not described. Most programs incorporated aspects of mentorship and used multiple teaching strategies, such as direct and interactive instruction. Extrinsic metrics of success (e.g., research output) were dominant in reported program outcomes compared with markers of intrinsic success (e.g., career fulfillment).

CONCLUSIONS

Although programs are providing clinician-scientists with practical skills training, opportunities exist for curricular and pedagogic optimization that may better support this complex career path. Training programs for clinician-scientists can address contemporary issues of wellness and equity by reconsidering metrics of program success and evolving the core tenets of their education models to include equity, diversity, and inclusion principles and patient-oriented research competencies.

Faculty retirements will likely exacerbate the anatomy educator shortage

Medical education has reported a shortage of anatomy educators since the 1960s. While the faculty pipeline has recently been explored, insights into retirement intentions, a key driver of faculty turnover, have yet to be investigated. With the mean age of anatomists rising, knowledge of retirement intentions among current educators is essential to understanding the anatomy educator shortage. This study explored the retirement intentions of current anatomy educators and their likely effects on the workforce. Surveys were distributed to department heads and the American Association for Anatomy (AAA) membership to inquire about job postings from 2018-2020 and retirement intentions, respectively. Department heads sought to fill open positions due to faculty retirements (36%, 15 of 42), faculty relocations/sabbaticals/new responsibilities (31%), and brand new positions (24%). The retirement intentions survey revealed that 61% (23 of 38) of faculty '55 and older' intend to retire within five years. Based on the extrapolation of AAA membership data, estimates suggest that almost twice as many anatomy faculty could retire per year (n = 40) over the next five years compared to the estimated number of annual PhD graduates (n = 22) likely to enter the workforce. Factors driving retirement intentions were overwhelmingly age and finances, followed by job satisfaction and family. The creation of new anatomy educator positions to address increased student enrollments and new health sciences programs is likely to place even greater strain on workforce demands.

Recent Trends in Faculty Promotion in U.S. Medical Schools: Implications for Recruitment, Retention, and Diversity and Inclusion

PURPOSE

Faculty promotion is important for retention and has implications for diversity. This study provides an update on recent trends in faculty promotion in U.S. medical schools.

METHOD

Using data from the Association of American Medical Colleges Faculty Roster, the authors examined trends in faculty promotion over 10 years. Promotion status for full-time assistant and full-time associate professors who started between 2000 and 2009 inclusive was followed from January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2019. The authors used bivariate analyses to assess associations and promotion rates by sex, race/ethnicity, department, tenure status, and degree type.

RESULTS

The promotion rate for assistant professors was 44.3% (2,330/5,263) in basic science departments, 37.1% (17,232/46,473) in clinical science departments, and 33.6% (131/390) in other departments. Among clinical departments, family medicine had the lowest rate of promoting assistant professors (24.4%; 484/1,982) and otolaryngology the highest rate (51.2%; 282/551). Faculty members who were male (38.9%; 11,687/30,017), White (40.0%; 12,635/31,596), tenured (58.7%; 98/167) or tenure-eligible (55.6%; 6,653/11,976), and holding MDs/PhDs (48.7%; 1,968/4,038) had higher promotion rates than, respectively, faculty who were female (36.3%; 7,975/21,998), minorities underrepresented in medicine (URM; 31.0%; 1,716/5,539), nontenured (32.5%; 12,174/37,433), and holding other/unknown degrees (20.6%; 195/948; all P < .001). These differences were less pronounced among associate professors; however, URM and nontenured faculty continued to have lower promotion rates compared with White, Asian, or tenured faculty at the associate professor level.

CONCLUSIONS

Promotion rates varied not only by faculty rank but also by faculty sex, race/ethnicity, department, tenure status, and degree type. The differences were more pronounced for assistant professors than associate professors. URM faculty members, particularly assistant professors, were promoted at lower rates than their White and Asian peers. More research to understand the drivers of disparities in faculty promotion seems warranted.

The Diversity Efforts Disparity in Academic Medicine

The diversity efforts disparity in academic medicine can be defined as part of the minority tax that negatively impacts faculty who are underrepresented in medicine. This disparity can be defined as differences between minority and non-minority faculty in their recruitment or assignment by the institution to address diversity issues, climate concerns and conflict around inclusion in academic medicine. It can manifest as disproportionate committee service, being asked to be the face of diversity for the school on websites or brochures or being asked to serve on diversity task forces or initiatives. In this article, the author further characterizes the diversity efforts disparity and provides recommendations for how to identify and address it in academic medicine.