Rank Equity Index: Measuring Parity in the Advancement of Underrepresented Populations in Academic Medicine

Gender and Racial Diversity Among Obstetrics and Gynecology Departments and Gynecologic Oncology Divisions in Canada: Are We There Yet?

OBJECTIVES

Gender and racial diversity in academic Canadian departments of obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) have not been previously described. We examined gender representation in leadership in academic OBGYN departments and gynecologic oncology (GO) divisions, and determined factors predictive of leadership and promotion including racialized status.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study of Canadian residency-affiliated academic OBGYN departments queried institutional websites in January 2021 to compile a list of academic faculty. Subjective gender was assessed using photographs and pronouns, and racialized status was determined using photographs. Logistic regression analyses determined predictive factors for leadership roles. Fassiotto et al. rank equity indices (REI) and Hofler et al. representation ratios were calculated.

RESULTS

Within 16 Canadian institutions there were 354 (33.6%) men and 699 (66.4%) women, with 18.3% racialized faculty. Men were more likely to reach full professorship (P < 0.00001) and leadership positions of department chair, vice-chair or division head (P = 0.01). Representation ratios for women in OBGYN were <1 for all administrative leadership positions, and pairwise comparisons of the probability of promotion for women OBGYNs using REI reveal significant disparities between senior and junior administrative leadership and professorial ranks. Racialized physicians were less likely to have attained full professorship (P = 0.002). Ninety-seven academic GOs were identified: 68 (70.1%) were women, 17 (17.5%) racialized. Seven GO divisions (44%) had no racialized members. On multivariate analysis, only year of completion of fellowship was predictive of leadership.

CONCLUSION

In academic Canadian OBGYN departments women are underrepresented in leadership and full professor positions. Racialized faculty are underrepresented in full professorship.

The Relationship Between the Social Mission Content of Medical School Mission Statements and Minority Faculty Representation Among Faculty and Senior Leadership

Medical schools with social missions have the potential to increase minority student interest in health disparities research. In previous work, the authors looked at the missions of medical schools to determine if they were associated with minority student representation. In this paper, the authors look at the representation of full-time faculty and senior leaders who are underrepresented in medicine in US medical schools. This study included all MD-granting medical schools in the US with available data on mission statement Social Mission Content (SMC) and faculty demographics. Data were analyzed for representation of faculty underrepresented in medicine (URM) among all faculty, among junior as compared to senior faculty, and among department chairs. In the 2013 data, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to characterize the association between SMC and contemporaneous URM faculty representation. In the 2014-2020 data, hierarchical linear models were used to estimate the association between SMC and the annual rate of change in URM faculty representation. In 2013, URM faculty accounted for 7.4% of all faculty at the median medical school, increasing to 8.4% in 2020. As of 2013, URM representation among junior faculty was 9.2% at the median school, 5.6% among senior faculty, and 4.3% among department chairs. The authors found a slow increase in the percentage of URM faculty members (but not department chairs). This trend did not vary between schools with lower vs. higher emphasis on a social mission (based on the mission statement). The increase in chair representation was determined to be associated with the type of the school, whether historically Black or Puerto Rican, and not precisely its mission.

Underrepresented in medicine (URiM) faculty development: Trends in biomedical database publication

BACKGROUND

Biomedical databases create an educational platform that allows institutions to share innovations and research discoveries. Identifying literature in biomedical databases that inform the faculty development experiences of faculty underrepresented in medicine (URiM) can help institutions identify resources to promote career advancement for this group. The authors sought to determine biomedical database trends in publications related to faculty development experiences of URiM faculty over the last twenty years.

METHODS

An electronic search for literature published between January 2003 to Dec 2022 was conducted in the databases CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, and PsycInfo using keywords underrepresented minority, faculty development, career development, professional development, academic medicine, and workforce in the title, abstract, or body of the manuscript. Growth rates were calculated for each database. The statistical significance difference in median numbers of publication per database was evaluated using Krusksal Wallis and Dunn's test post hoc.

RESULTS

Search results found 1516 publications over the twenty-year period. Scopus published the most literature with 1,372 publications with a mean number of 68.6 per year (SD 83.47). Both Scopus and PubMed had increased growth rates at 41% and 25%, respectively. There were statistically significant differences in median publication numbers between Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycInfo (p < 0.001) but not PubMed (p 0.062).

CONCLUSION

Trends in publications related to URiM faculty development have increased over the last twenty years, most noted in the Scopus and PubMed biomedical databases.

Limitations in Faculty Advancement for Underrepresented Groups in Academic Otolaryngology

OBJECTIVE

Despite the increasing racial diversity of the United States, representation in academic medicine faculty does not reach concordance with the general population and worsens with higher rank. Few studies have examined this within academic Otolaryngology and surgical subspecialties. This project aims to compare rank equity in academic Otolaryngology on self-reported gender and race/ethnicity between the years 2000 and 2020.

METHODS

Publicly available data were obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges under the "Data & Reports" section for the years 2000 and 2020. The report comprised of full-time faculty from all U.S. medical schools. To determine parity between faculty ranks across gender and race/ethnicity, rank equity index (REI) was calculated for associate/assistant, professor/associate, and professor/assistant professor comparisons.

RESULTS

The percentage of women faculty in Otolaryngology has increased from 21% in 2000 to 37% in 2020; however, they did not achieve parity at all rank comparisons for both years. On the contrary, men were above parity at all rank comparisons. Improvements in rank equity occurred for Black/African American (Black) and Hispanic Latino/Spanish Origin (Latine) faculty between the years 2000 and 2020; however, when accounting for gender, benefits were concentrated among men.

CONCLUSION

Advancement along the academic ladder is limited for women of all racial groups in academic Otolaryngology. While improved rank equity was seen for Black and Latine faculty, these improvements were largely among men. Future directions should aim to identify barriers to recruitment, retention, and promotion for women and underrepresented in medicine (URiM) academic otolaryngologists and create interventions that diversify Otolaryngology faculty at all ranks.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 134:1625-1632, 2024.

Finding the Potholes in Academic Career Pathways for Underrepresented Groups in Otolaryngology

OBJECTIVE

To assess inequities in representation among ranks and odds of promotion by race in academic otolaryngology.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

US academic medical centers.

METHODS

Demographic data was collected for medical students, residents, and faculty in the Association of American Medical Colleges and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education databases for the academic year 2020 to 2021. The rank equity index (REI) was used to make pairwise comparisons between ranks to determine groups' representation between levels. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) demonstrating the likelihood that an individual of a particular rank/race would advance in their academic career were determined.

RESULTS

Representation comparing medical students with full professors for black, Latine, and Asian otolaryngologists was below parity (REI: 0.27, 0.85, 0.85, respectively). Black (OR: 0.20, CI: 0.15, 0.26), Latine (OR: 0.61, CI: 0.50, 0.75), and Asian (OR: 0.62, CI: 0.55, 0.71) medical students all faced lower odds of becoming otolaryngology residents compared to their white counterparts. Similar findings occurred when comparing resident and assistant professor representation. American Indian/Alaskan Native (AIAN) and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (NHPI) REIs and ORs could not be assessed as only 1 self-reported AIAN and no NHPI faculty are present in the studied data.

CONCLUSION

Underrepresented in Medicine and Asian physicians faced worsening representation at each rung of the academic otolaryngology ladder. The greatest losses occurred when medical students transitioned to residents and residents transitioned to assistant professors. AIAN and NH faculty were absent in otolaryngology, indicating vital targets for recruitment efforts.

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.

Why Are There So Few Women Medical School Deans? Debunking the Myth That Shorter Tenures Drive Disparities

PURPOSE

Gender disparities among the senior echelons of academic medicine are striking and persistent. The role of medical school dean has been particularly immune to gender diversity, and limited prior research identified women's shorter decanal tenures as a potential driver. The authors assessed gender differences in tenure length of deanships in the current era to elucidate this finding.

METHOD

From October 2020 to June 2021, the authors collected information about medical school deanships that were held from January 1, 2006, to June 30, 2020. All schools were members of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). The authors collected data from online public records and augmented their findings via direct outreach to medical schools. They used time-to-event analyses before and after adjustment for interim vs permanent status of the initial appointment, school ownership (public/private), and school size to assess for gender differences in length of deanship tenure during the study period. The unit of analysis was deanships, and the primary outcome was length of deanships measured in years.

RESULTS

Authors included data on 528 deanships. Women held 91 (17%) of these terms. Men held the majority of permanent deanships (n = 352 [85%]). A greater percentage of the deanships held by women were interim only (n = 27 [30%]) compared with men (n = 85 [20%]). In unadjusted and adjusted analyses, there were no significant gender differences in length of deanship tenures.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of appointments of AAMC-member medical school deans from 2006 to 2020 revealed that women have remained in their deanships as long as their male counterparts. The myth about women deans' shorter longevity should no longer be promulgated. Academic medicine should consider novel solutions to addressing women's persistent underrepresentation in the dean role, including employing the gender proportionality principle used in the business and legal communities.

Career Advancement Among Women Physicians in Nine Academic Medicine Specialties

Objective: Gender parity lags in academic medicine. We applied the Rank Equity Index (REI) to compare the longitudinal progress of women's academic medicine careers. We hypothesized that women have different rank parity in promotion by specialty based on the proportion of women in the specialty. Materials and Methods: Aggregate data by sex for medical students, residents, assistant professors, associate professors, and professors in nine specialties were obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges for 2019-2020. Specialties were clustered into terciles based on the proportion of women in the field: upper (obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, psychiatry), middle (internal medicine, emergency medicine, anesthesia), and lower (surgery, urology, and orthopedic surgery). We calculated the percentage representation by sex by specialty and rank to calculate REI. Specialty-specific REI comparisons between each rank were performed to assess parity in advancement. Results: Only specialties in the upper tercile recruited proportionally more women medical students to residency training. All specialties advanced women for the resident-to-assistant professor with psychiatry, internal medicine, emergency medicine, anesthesia, urology, and orthopedic surgery that promoted women faculty at rates above parity. No specialty demonstrated parity in advancement based on sex for the assistant professor-to-associate professor or associate professor-to-professor transitions. Conclusion: Gender inequity in advancement is evident in academic medicine starting at the assistant professor-to-associate professor stage, regardless of overall proportion of women in the specialty. This suggests a common set of barriers to career advancement of women faculty in academic medicine that must be addressed starting at the early career stage.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Pediatric Pulmonary Workforce: An Official American Thoracic Society Workshop Report

Despite growing recognition of the need for increased diversity among students, trainees, and faculty in health care, the medical workforce still lacks adequate representation from groups historically underrepresented in medicine (URiM). The subspecialty field of pediatric pulmonology is no exception. Although there have been efforts to address issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in our own field, gaps persist. To address these gaps, the members of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Advisory Group (DEI-AG) of the American Thoracic Society Pediatrics Assembly created and distributed a Needs Assessment Survey in the United States and Canada to better understand the racial and ethnic demographics of the pediatric pulmonary workforce and to learn more about successes, gaps, and opportunities to enhance how we recruit, train, and retain a diverse workforce. The DEI-AG leadership cochairs convened a workshop to review the findings of the DEI Needs Assessment Survey and to develop strategies to improve the recruitment and retention of URiM fellows and faculty. This Official ATS Workshop Report aims to identify barriers and opportunities for recruitment, training, and career development within the field of pediatric pulmonology. Additionally, we offer useful strategies and resources to improve the recruitment of URiM residents, the mentorship of trainees and junior faculty, and the career development of URiM faculty in academic centers. This Workshop Report is an important first deliverable by the DEI-AG. We hope that this work, originating from within the Pediatrics Assembly, will serve as a model for other Assemblies, disciplines across the ATS, and other fields in Pediatrics.

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.

How Do Academic Medicine Pathways Differ for Underrepresented Trainees and Physicians? A Critical Scoping Review

PURPOSE

Academic medicine faces difficulty recruiting and retaining a diverse workforce. The proportion of medical students who are underrepresented in medicine (URiM) is smaller than the proportion of URiM's in the general population, and these numbers worsen with each step up the academic medicine ladder. Previously known as the "leaky pipeline," this phenomenon may be better understood as disparate "pathways with potholes," which acknowledges the different structural barriers that URiM trainees and faculty face in academic medicine. This critical scoping review analyzed current literature to determine what variables contribute to the inequitable "pathways and potholes" URiM physicians experience in academic medicine.

METHOD

The authors combined scoping review methodology with a critical lens. The comprehensive search strategy used terms about academic medicine, underrepresented groups, and leaving academic medical careers. One reviewer conducted screening, full text review, and data extraction while in consultation with members of the research team. Data extraction focused on themes related to pathways and potholes, such as attrition, recruitment, and retention in academic medicine. Themes were iteratively merged, and quality of contribution to the field and literature gaps were noted.

RESULTS

Included papers clustered into attrition, recruitment, and retention. Those pertaining to attrition noted that URiM faculty are less likely to get promoted even when controlling for scholarly output, and a hostile work environment may exacerbate attrition. Recruitment and retention strategies were most effective when multi-pronged approaches changed every step of the recruitment and promotion processes.

CONCLUSIONS

These studies provide examples of various "potholes" that can affect representation in academic medicine of URiM trainees and faculty. However, only a few studies examined the link between isolating and hostile work environments, the so-called "chilly climate," and attrition from academic medicine. Understanding these concepts is key to producing the most effective interventions to improve diversity in medicine.

Intersectionality and Its Impact on Microaggression in Female Physicians in Academic Medicine: A Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction

The burden of microaggressions in the workplace is an ongoing stressor for female physicians in academic medicine. For female physicians of Color or of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Asexual community, this burden is even heavier due to the concept of intersectionality. The goal of this study is to assess frequency of microaggressions experienced by participants. In addition, to explore the associations between microaggression and individual outcomes, patient care practices and attitudes, and perception of pay/promotion equity.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional analysis of female residents, fellows and attendings conducted from December 2020-January 2021 at Northwell Health across all specialties. One hundred seventeen participants replied to the study in REDCap. They completed questionnaires related to the topics of imposter phenomenon, microaggressions, gender identity salience, patient safety, patient care, counterproductive work behavior and pay and promotion equity.

Results

A majority of the respondents were white (49.6%) and 15+ years out of medical school (43.6%). Around 84.6% of female physicians endorsed experiencing microaggressions. There were positive associations between microaggressions and imposter phenomenon as well as microaggressions and counterproductive work behavior. There was a negative association between microaggressions and pay equity or promotion. The small sample size did not allow for us to examine differences by race.

Discussion

Although the number of female physicians continues to rise due to an uptick in female medical school enrollees, female physicians still must deal with the burden of microaggressions in the workplace.

Conclusions

As a result, academic medical institutions must seek to create more supportive workplace for female physicians.

Mitigating the Isolation of Minoritized Faculty in Academic Medicine

Increasing numbers of faculty who are underrepresented in medicine has been a focus of academic health systems. Understanding the experiences of these faculty helps in creating environments that are inclusive and supportive, promoting faculty success. When compared with non-minoritized faculty, minoritized faculty face racism, isolation, diversity efforts disparities, clinical efforts disparities, lack of faculty development, and promotion disparities. While there have been contributions to the literature to better characterize disparities faced by minoritized faculty, little has been written about isolation. Isolation occurs when faculty underrepresented in medicine do not feel like part of the department or institution. They may feel excluded from mainstream culture as if they are invisible. They may be excluded from conversations, group chats, get togethers, or other work-related or social functions. These feelings can manifest as imposter syndrome and impact work performance and decision-making. In this article, the author shares how to recognize and mitigate isolation to promote an inclusive environment for all faculty.

Gender and Racial Representation Trends Among Internal Medicine Department Chairs from 2010-2020

BACKGROUND

Quality medical education, reduction in health disparities, and healthcare research that includes all members of society are enhanced by diversity in departments of internal medicine (IM). Research on increasing diversity within the academic medicine student body or faculty notes the important role of leadership. Yet, there is a scarcity in research into diversity in leadership.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to go beyond aggregate numbers and answer the question: What is the level of parity representation, by gender and race, at department chair positions in academic IM departments?

DESIGN

A cross-sectional analysis of race/ethnicity and gender in IM medical school departments from 2010 to 2020 was conducted using data from the American Association of Medical College's (AAMC) Faculty Roster. The proportion of IM department chairs to IM faculty by race/ethnicity for each year (2010-2020) was used to calculate the Leadership Parity Index (LPI) in this study. LPI by gender and by gender and race/ethnicity were also calculated for each year.

RESULTS

In aggregate numbers, Black or African American and Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish Origin faculty remain under-represented in academic IM each making up, on average, approximately 4% of the total IM faculty. The LPI calculations revealed that faculty who identified as White were consistently over-represented as department chairs while Asian faculty were consistently under-represented in leadership and ranked lowest in leadership parity among the ethnic groups studied. The leadership parity index also showed that women faculty across all races were under-represented.

CONCLUSION

Women and Asian faculty encounter a ceiling effect that may be at play in IM departments. While significant progress still needs to be made in the representation of under-represented minorities, the findings of this study show that aggregate data does not provide a true picture of equity and parity in Internal Medicine faculties.

Breaking boundaries through Doctors Reaching Minority Men Exploring Neuroscience: a mentorship model to foster a pipeline for underrepresented minorities

OBJECTIVE

In 2015, the Association of American Medical Colleges report titled "Altering the Course: Black Males in Medicine" showed a decline in the number of Black men matriculating into medical school. To alter this trend, the authors' hypothesis was that formally exposing Black men to the clinical neurosciences during high school would enhance their chances of entering the physician workforce. For this reason, in 2007, the Doctors Reaching Minority Men Exploring Neuroscience (DR. MMEN) program was established at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. The program aimed to provide early exposure, mentorship, and inspiration to high school-age Black and Latinx men. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the DR. MMEN program in the context of the recent race and ethnicity trends among medical school matriculants (MSMs).

METHODS

Association of American Medical Colleges data on MSMs stratified by race and ethnicity were reviewed for the period between 2015 and 2020. Data pertinent to the academic achievements of DR. MMEN participants, such as matriculation to college and/or medical school, were prospectively tracked and incorporated with mixed-methods exit assessment data. Qualitative responses were coded and analyzed using a thematic concept analysis method.

RESULTS

Over the study period, the increase of MSMs in the US was 1.0% and 1.7% for Black and Latinx individuals, respectively. Changes for the male MSM cohort were negligible: 0.3% for Black and 0.7% for Latinx. With respect to DR. MMEN, 42% of participants from 2017 to 2019 earned college scholarships, and 25% of students from the 2017-2018 cohort matriculated to a combined college-medical program. Survey data showed that 100% of DR. MMEN participants found the program useful. Analysis of qualitative data revealed that participants considered pursuing a career in neurosurgery or in another medical field. Diligence and a passion for medicine were identified as the top two most important lessons in the program, and witnessing patient satisfaction and observing a neurosurgery operation were described as the most important experiences. Participants considered availability to give advice and feedback and a passion for teaching as the principal attributes of their mentors.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past 6 years, the slight increase in Black and Latinx MSMs has not been significant enough to remedy ethnoracial disparities among MSMs. In particular, Black male matriculation to medical school has remained stagnant. The DR. MMEN program is a promising model to inspire young scholars and improve diversity within neuroscience and medicine at large.

Pseudoleadership as a contributor to the URM faculty experience

Pseudoleadership for faculty underrepresented in medicine (URM) has been defined as when URM faculty are placed in leadership positions only because of the racial and ethnic diversity they bring, when they are not ready or trained for such roles because of being early in their faculty careers. It occurs when senior leaders push early career URM faculty into spaces where it is difficult for them to be successful.  Pseudoleadership can open up URM faculty to manipulation by superiors and impact URM advancement, as work of leadership positions take time away from scholarship and other activities which institutions value for promotion. Pseudoleadership is typically a problem for early career URM faculty and can be seen when ranks such as lecturer or assistant professor are placed in leadership or other administrative positions without careful thought on how to support the advancement and promotion of this group. In this manuscript the authors discuss pseudoleadership, its impact on the advancement and development of faculty who are underrepresented in medicine and a path forward.

Barriers, Challenges, and Solutions: What Can We Learn About Leadership in Academic Medicine From a Qualitative Study of Emergency Medicine Women Chairs?

PURPOSE

Women have made significant gains in leadership across all disciplines in academic medicine but have not yet achieved leadership parity as department chairs. The authors investigated the challenges experienced by one cohort of women department chairs in emergency medicine (EM) and the solutions they proposed to address these challenges.

METHOD

The authors conducted a qualitative descriptive study of 19 of 20 possible current and emeritus emergency medicine women department chairs at academic medical centers between April and December 2020. Participant interviews elicited self-reported demographic characteristics and narrative responses to a semistructured interview template that focused on the role of gender in their leadership and career trajectories. Interviews were transcribed, blinded, and iteratively coded and categorized.

RESULTS

The analysis demonstrated 4 common challenges and 5 enacted or proposed solutions. The challenges discussed by the participants were: feeling unprepared for the role of department chair, being one of few women in leadership, inheriting unhealthy department cultures, and facing negative faculty reactions. The individual- and institutional-level solutions discussed by the participants were: gaining and maintaining confidence (individual), maintaining accountability and mission alignment (individual), facilitating teamwork (individual), supporting women's leadership (institution), and creating safe leadership cultures (institution).

CONCLUSIONS

Women department chairs in EM were successful academic leaders despite confronting several challenges to their leadership. Considering the study findings through the lens of the concept of second-generation gender bias further illuminates the influence of gender on leadership in academic medicine. These findings suggest several possible strategies that can combat gender bias, increase gender parity among academic medicine's leadership, and improve the leadership experience for women leaders.

Can Behavior-Based Interviews Reduce Bias in Fellowship Applicant Assessment?

PURPOSE

Components of trainee applications may introduce bias based on race or gender. Behavior-based interviews (BBIs) rely on structured questions to elicit applicants' past experiences to predict future behavior. Our objective was to implement BBIs in one fellowship program and compare applicant assessment by race and gender when using a standardized assessment tool versus a BBI-based tool.

METHODS

In 2019 and 2020, we developed BBIs and BBI-specific assessments; 6 of 15 faculty were trained in this interview method. Applicants completed 6 interviews with either a BBI or unstructured format. All faculty completed a standardized assessment on applicants. BBI faculty also completed a BBI-specific assessment. Normalized average scores were calculated and used to rank applicants into quartiles. Race was categorized into White, underrepresented minorities (URMs; Black and Hispanics), and non-URMs (all others). Faculty and applicants were surveyed about BBIs.

RESULTS

Seventy-five applicants were interviewed. Significant differences were found in standardized assessment scores (White 1.01 +/- 0.09, non-URM 1.02 +/- 0.08, URM .94 +/- 0.07; P = .02) and quartiles by race (P = .05), but not for BBI scores (White 0.98 +/- 0.09, non-URM 1.03 +/- 0.09, URM 1.02 +/- 0.1; P = .18) or quartiles by race (P = .17). There were no significant differences in score or quartile by gender for either tool. The majority of faculty and applicant survey respondents commented positively about BBIs.

CONCLUSION

BBIs were successfully implemented and generally reviewed positively by faculty and applicants. BBIs reduced racial differences in applicant assessments. Applicant assessment may benefit from structured tools to mitigate potential biases.

Gender Differences in Experiences of Leadership Emergence Among Emergency Medicine Department Chairs

IMPORTANCE

The number of women entering medicine continues to increase, but women remain underrepresented at all tiers of academic rank and chair leadership in EM. The proportion of female chairs in EM has not exceeded 12% in 2 decades.

OBJECTIVE

To compare how male and female EM chairs experience leadership emergence, with attention to factors associated with support of the emergence of female chairs.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This qualitative descriptive study was conducted between April 2020 and February 2021 at 36 US academic EM departments. Eligible participants were all current and emeritus female EM academic department chairs (with a possible cohort of 20 individuals) and an equal number of randomly selected male chairs.

INTERVENTIONS

Semistructured interviews were conducted via teleconferencing with an 11-item interview guide.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Qualitative findings identifying similarities and gender differences in leadership emergence were collected.

RESULTS

Among 20 female chairs in EM, 19 women (mean [SD] age, 56.2 [7.1] years) participated in the study (95.0% response rate). There were 13 active chairs, and 6 women were within 5 years of chair leadership. Among 77 male chairs in EM identified and randomized, 37 men were invited to participate, among whom 19 individuals (51.4%) agreed to participate; 18 men (mean [SD] age, 52.2 [7.5] years) completed their interviews. Reflecting upon their experiences of leadership emergence, male chairs saw leadership as their destiny, were motivated to be chairs to gain influence, were dismissive of risks associated with chairing a department, and were sponsored by senior male leaders to advance in leadership. Female chairs saw leadership as something they had long prepared for, were motivated to be chairs to make a difference, were cautious of risks associated with chairing a department that could derail their careers, and relied on their own efforts to advance in leadership.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found that experiences of leadership emergence differed by gender. These results suggest that leadership development strategies tailored to women should promote early internalization of leadership identity, tightly link leadership to purpose, cultivate active sponsorship, and encourage women's risk tolerance through leadership validation to support women's development as leaders and demonstrate a commitment to gender equity in EM leadership.

Using the Rank Equity Index to measure emergency medicine faculty rank progression

BACKGROUND

Faculty diversity is a high-priority goal for academic emergency medicine (EM). Most administrators currently monitor faculty diversity using aggregate data, which may obscure underrepresentation by rank. We apply the Rank Equity Index (REI) to EM faculty data to assess rank progression.

METHODS

We calculated the REI (% faculty cohort higher rank/% faculty cohort lower rank) for EM faculty. We performed REI analyses by faculty gender (women, men) and race/ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic/Latinx, Asian). We compared professor/assistant professor, professor/associate professor, and associate professor/assistant professor to establish rank parity for gender and race/ethnicity. Parity is an REI of 1.0.

RESULTS

REI analysis by gender demonstrates that women faculty did not achieve parity at any rank comparison in any study year. REI analysis by race/ethnicity demonstrates that all faculty of color are below parity at the assistant to associate professor promotion. Latinx faculty are at parity for associate professor to professor, but Asian and Black faculty do not achieve parity in any comparison. Intersecting gender and race/ethnicity in the REI analysis demonstrates that Asian women have the lowest REIs among all faculty ranks and races/ethnicities. Men of all races/ethnicities achieved parity in two of three rank comparisons, except for Black men, who did not achieve parity in any comparison.

CONCLUSIONS

REI analysis demonstrates EM women faculty and faculty of color are not achieving rank parity and are disadvantaged at the first tier of promotion. A preliminary longitudinal trend analysis suggests little progress. Asian women and Black men experience the most rank inequity. REI analysis identifies a need for focused faculty development to enhance our most vulnerable faculty's rank progression, suggesting that targeted recruitment and retention efforts of women faculty of all races/ethnicities and faculty of color, in particular, will improve diversity at every tier of faculty rank.

Diversifying Researchers and Funding in Otolaryngology

Research productivity is a key metric used in evaluation for advancement and promotion in academic medicine. There are known gender, race, and ethnicity disparities in otolaryngology research and funding. Female academic otolaryngologists have been shown to lag in scholarly productivity, representation at national meetings, leadership positions on journal editorial boards, and National Institutes of Health and industry funding. Underrepresented minorities have been shown to be less successful at obtaining Centralized Otolaryngology Research Efforts grant funding. Directed approaches, such as research funding for women and minorities or targeted recruitment and retention of underrepresented faculty, may move the field toward parity.

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.

Estimation and Comparison of Current and Future Racial/Ethnic Representation in the US Health Care Workforce

IMPORTANCE

The COVID-19 pandemic coupled with health disparities have highlighted the disproportionate burden of disease among Black, Hispanic, and Native American (ie, American Indian or Alaska Native) populations. Increasing transparency around the representation of these populations in health care professions may encourage efforts to increase diversity that could improve cultural competence among health care professionals and reduce health disparities.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the racial/ethnic diversity of the current health care workforce and the graduate pipeline for 10 health care professions and to evaluate whether the diversity of the pipeline suggests greater representation of Black, Hispanic, and Native American populations in the future.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study used weighted data from the 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) to compare the diversity of 10 health care occupations (advanced practice registered nurses, dentists, occupational therapists, pharmacists, physical therapists, physician assistants, physicians, registered nurses, respiratory therapists, and speech-language pathologists) with the diversity of the US working-age population, and 2019 data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) were used to compare the diversity of graduates with that of the US population of graduation age. Data from the IPEDS included all awards and degrees conferred between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019, in the US.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

A health workforce diversity index (diversity index) was developed to compare the racial/ethnic diversity of the 10 health care professions (or the graduates in the pipeline) analyzed with the racial/ethnic diversity of the current working-age population (or average student-age population). For the current workforce, the index was the ratio of current workers in a health occupation to the total working-age population by racial/ethnic group. For new graduates, the index was the ratio of recent graduates to the population aged 20 to 35 years by racial/ethnic group. A value equal to 1 indicated equal representation of the racial/ethnic groups in the current workforce (or pipeline) compared with the working-age population.

RESULTS

The study sample obtained from the 2019 ACS comprised a weighted total count of 148 358 252 individuals aged 20 to 65 years (White individuals: 89 756 689; Black individuals: 17 916 227; Hispanic individuals: 26 953 648; and Native American individuals: 1 108 404) who were working or searching for work and a weighted total count of 71 608 009 individuals aged 20 to 35 years (White individuals: 38 995 242; Black individuals: 9 830 765; Hispanic individuals: 15 257 274; and Native American individuals: 650 221) in the educational pipeline. Among the 10 professions assessed, the mean diversity index for Black people was 0.54 in the current workforce and in the educational pipeline. In 5 of 10 health care professions, representation of Black graduates was lower than representation in the current workforce (eg, occupational therapy: 0.31 vs 0.50). The mean diversity index for Hispanic people was 0.34 in the current workforce; it improved to 0.48 in the educational pipeline but remained lower than 0.50 in 6 of 10 professions, including physical therapy (0.33). The mean diversity index for Native American people was 0.54 in the current workforce and increased to 0.57 in the educational pipeline.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found that Black, Hispanic, and Native American people were underrepresented in the 10 health care professions analyzed. Although some professions had greater diversity than others and there appeared to be improvement among graduates in the educational pipeline compared with the current workforce, additional policies are needed to further strengthen and support a workforce that is more representative of the population.