Changing the face of academic medicine: an equity action plan for institutions

Lessons learned from implementing a diversity, equity, and inclusion curriculum for health research professionals at a large academic research institution

Objective

Despite advances in incorporating diversity and structural competency into medical education curriculum, there is limited curriculum for public health research professionals. We developed and implemented a four-part diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training series tailored for academic health research professionals to increase foundational knowledge of core diversity concepts and improve skills.

Methods

We analyzed close- and open-ended attendee survey data to evaluate within- and between-session changes in DEI knowledge and perceived skills.

Results

Over the four sessions, workshop attendance ranged from 45 to 82 attendees from our 250-person academic department and represented a mix of staff (64%), faculty (25%), and trainees (11%). Most identified as female (74%), 28% as a member of an underrepresented racial and ethnic minority (URM) group, and 17% as LGBTQI. During all four sessions, attendees increased their level of DEI knowledge, and within sessions two through four, attendees' perception of DEI skills increased. We observed increased situational DEI awareness as higher proportions of attendees noted disparities in mentoring and opportunities for advancement/promotion. An increase in a perceived lack of DEI in the workplace as a problem was observed; but only statistically significant among URM attendees.

Discussion

Developing applied curricula yielded measurable improvements in knowledge and skills for a diverse health research department of faculty, staff, and students. Nesting this training within a more extensive program of departmental activities to improve climate and address systematic exclusion likely contributed to the series' success. Additional research is underway to understand the series' longer-term impact on applying skills for behavior change.

Gender, Racial, and Ethnic and Inequities in Receipt of Multiple National Institutes of Health Research Project Grants

Importance

Diversity in the biomedical research workforce is essential for addressing complex health problems. Female investigators and investigators from underrepresented ethnic and racial groups generate novel, impactful, and innovative research, yet they are significantly underrepresented among National Institutes of Health (NIH) investigators.

Objective

To examine the gender, ethnic, and racial distribution of super NIH investigators who received 3 or more concurrent NIH grants.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study included a national cohort of NIH-funded principal investigators (PIs) from the NIH Information for Management, Planning, Analysis, and Coordination (IMPAC II) database from 1991 to 2020.

Exposures

Self-identified gender, race and ethnicity, annual number of NIH grant receipt, career stage, and highest degree.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Distribution of investigators receiving 3 or more research project grants, referred to as super principal investigators (SPIs), by gender, race, and ethnicity.

Results

Among 33 896 investigators in fiscal year 2020, 7478 (22.01%) identified as Asian, 623 (1.8%) as Black, 1624 (4.8%) as Hispanic, and 22 107 (65.2%) as White; 21 936 (61.7%) identified as men; and 8695 (35.3%) were early-stage investigators. Between 1991 and 2020, the proportion of SPIs increased 3-fold from 704 (3.7%) to 3942 (11.3%). However, SPI status was unequal across gender, ethnic, and racial groups. Women and Black PIs were significantly underrepresented among SPIs, even after adjusting for career stage and degree, and were 34% and 40% less likely than their male and White colleagues, respectively, to be an SPI. Black women PIs were the least likely to be represented among SPIs and were 71% less likely to attain SPI status than White men PIs (adjusted odds ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.21-0.41).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of a national cohort of NIH-funded investigators, the gender, ethnic, and racial gaps in receipt of multiple research project grants among NIH investigators was clearly apparent and warrants further investigation and interventions.