Diversity, equity, and inclusion in gastroenterology and hepatology: A survey of where we stand.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In the setting of increasing attention to representation in medicine, we aimed to assess current perspectives of racial and ethnic workforce diversity and health care disparities among gastroenterology (GI) and hepatology professionals in the United States. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We developed and administered a 33-item electronic cross-sectional survey to members of five national GI and hepatology societies. Survey items were organized into thematic modules and solicited perspectives on racial and ethnic workforce diversity, health care disparities in GI and hepatology, and potential interventions to enhance workforce diversity and improve health equity. Of the 1219 survey participants, 62.3% were male, 48.7% were non-Hispanic White, and 19.9% were from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine. The most frequently reported barriers to increasing racial and ethnic diversity in GI and hepatology were insufficient representation of underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups in the education and training pipeline (n = 431 [35.4%]), in professional leadership (n = 340 [27.9%]), and among practicing GI and hepatology professionals (n = 324 [26.6%]). Suggested interventions were to increase career mentorship opportunities (n = 545 [44.7%]), medical student opportunities (n = 520 [42.7%]), and program and professional society leadership roles for underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups (n = 473 [38.8%]). CONCLUSIONS: Our survey explored imperative and timely perspectives on racial and ethnic representation and health equity among professionals in GI and hepatology. The findings should inform future interventions to address workforce diversity and establish priorities toward improving health equity, ultimately serving as a springboard for professional societies, academic institutions, and other organizations that aim to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in our field.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion in gastroenterology and hepatology: a survey of where we stand.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In the setting of increasing attention to representation in medicine, we aimed to assess current perspectives of racial and ethnic workforce diversity and health care disparities among gastroenterology (GI) and hepatology professionals in the United States. METHODS: We developed and administered a 33-item electronic cross-sectional survey to members of 5 national GI and hepatology societies. Survey items were organized into thematic modules and solicited perspectives on racial and ethnic workforce diversity, health care disparities in GI and hepatology, and potential interventions to enhance workforce diversity and improve health equity. RESULTS: Of the 1219 survey participants, 62.3% were male, 48.7% were non-Hispanic White, and 19.9% were from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine. The most frequently reported barriers to increasing racial and ethnic diversity in GI and hepatology were insufficient representation of underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups in the education and training pipeline (n = 431 [35.4%]), in professional leadership (n = 340 [27.9%]), and among practicing GI and hepatology professionals (n = 324 [26.6%]). Suggested interventions were to increase career mentorship opportunities (n = 545 [44.7%]), medical student opportunities (n = 520 [42.7%]), and program and professional society leadership roles for underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups (n = 473 [38.8%]). CONCLUSIONS: Our survey explored imperative and timely perspectives on racial and ethnic representation and health equity among professionals in GI and hepatology. The findings should inform future interventions to address workforce diversity and establish priorities toward improving health equity, ultimately serving as a springboard for professional societies, academic institutions, and other organizations that aim to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in our field.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Gastroenterology and Hepatology: A Survey of Where We Stand.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In the setting of increasing attention to representation in medicine, we aimed to assess current perspectives of racial and ethnic workforce diversity and health care disparities among gastroenterology (GI) and hepatology professionals in the United States. METHODS: We developed and administered a 33-item electronic cross-sectional survey to members of 5 national GI and hepatology societies. Survey items were organized into thematic modules and solicited perspectives on racial and ethnic workforce diversity, health care disparities in GI and hepatology, and potential interventions to enhance workforce diversity and improve health equity. RESULTS: Of the 1219 survey participants, 62.3% were male, 48.7% were non-Hispanic White, and 19.9% were from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine. The most frequently reported barriers to increasing racial and ethnic diversity in GI and hepatology were insufficient representation of underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups in the education and training pipeline (n = 431 [35.4%]), in professional leadership (n = 340 [27.9%]), and among practicing GI and hepatology professionals (n = 324 [26.6%]). Suggested interventions were to increase career mentorship opportunities (n = 545 [44.7%]), medical student opportunities (n = 520 [42.7%]), and program and professional society leadership roles for underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups (n = 473 [38.8%]). CONCLUSIONS: Our survey explored imperative and timely perspectives on racial and ethnic representation and health equity among professionals in GI and hepatology. The findings should inform future interventions to address workforce diversity and establish priorities toward improving health equity, ultimately serving as a springboard for professional societies, academic institutions, and other organizations that aim to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in our field.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Gastroenterology and Hepatology: A Survey of Where We Stand.

INTRODUCTION: In the setting of increasing attention to representation in medicine, we aimed to assess current perspectives of racial and ethnic workforce diversity and health care disparities among gastroenterology (GI) and hepatology professionals in the United States. METHODS: We developed and administered a 33-item electronic cross-sectional survey to members of 5 national GI and hepatology societies. Survey items were organized into thematic modules and solicited perspectives on racial and ethnic workforce diversity, health care disparities in GI and hepatology, and potential interventions to enhance workforce diversity and improve health equity. RESULTS: Of the 1,219 survey participants, 62.3% were male, 48.7% were non-Hispanic White, and 19.9% were from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine. The most frequently reported barriers to increasing racial and ethnic diversity in GI and hepatology were insufficient representation of underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups in the education and training pipeline (n = 431 [35.4%]), in professional leadership (n = 340 [27.9%]), and among practicing GI and hepatology professionals (n = 324 [26.6%]). Suggested interventions were to increase career mentorship opportunities (n = 545 [44.7%]), medical student opportunities (n = 520 [42.7%]), and program and professional society leadership roles for underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups (n = 473 [38.8%]). DISCUSSION: Our survey explored imperative and timely perspectives on racial and ethnic representation and health equity among professionals in GI and hepatology. The findings should inform future interventions to address workforce diversity and establish priorities toward improving health equity, ultimately serving as a springboard for professional societies, academic institutions, and other organizations that aim to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in our field.

A multi-pronged, antiracist approach to optimize equity in medical school admissions.

BACKGROUND: Increasing the number of physicians who identify as an underrepresented minority (URM) has been a focus for decades. Despite the US Department of Health and Human Services establishing The Council on Graduate Medical Education focussing on the underrepresentation of minorities in medicine in 1990, US medical students in 1998-1999 were15.2% URM and twenty years later, URM students comprise only 14.6% of matriculants. This reflected our experience at University of Maryland School of Medicine despite our diverse community where over 60% of the population identify as Black or African-American. We share our strategies to mitigate bias in the admissions process and our resulting outcomes. METHODS: We implemented multiple interventions including interviewer training, recruitment strategies, holistic screening, changes in the interview process and increased racial, ethnic and gender diversity on our admissions committee. These changes were made over a two-year period initially focussing on the committee, followed by focussed interventions for interviewers. RESULTS: With these interventions, we demonstrated an improvement in the number of URM applicants that matriculated. In 2019, we had the first class that was in which no one ethnicity or race comprised the majority of the class, with 54% of matriculants identifying as students of colour. In 2020, in addition to sustaining a majority of the class identifying as students of colour, the proportion of URM students increased from 10%-13% for the preceding 3 years, to 24% of the entering class. CONCLUSION: The number of physicians who identify as URM must be increased for the benefit of our patients and health care system. Unconscious bias training for interviewers, focused recruitment strategies, holistic screening deemphasising the MCAT, blinding interviewers to MCAT scores and GPA, and increasing admissions committee diversity are five concrete steps that yielded the desired outcome of increasing URM representation among our medical school matriculants.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of TELEmedicine for Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (TELE-IBD).

INTRODUCTION: Telemedicine has shown promise in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The objective of this study was to compare disease activity and quality of life (QoL) in a 1-year randomized trial of IBD patients receiving telemedicine vs. standard care. METHODS: Patients with worsening symptoms in the prior 2 years were eligible for randomization to telemedicine (monitoring via texts EOW or weekly) or standard care. The primary outcomes were the differences in change in disease activity and QoL between the groups; change in healthcare utilization among groups was a secondary aim. RESULTS: 348 participants were enrolled (117 control group, 115 TELE-IBD EOW, and 116 TELE-IBD weekly). 259 (74.4%) completed the study. Age was 38.9 ± 12.3 years, 56.6% were women, 91.9% were Caucasian, 67.9% had Crohn's disease (CD) and 42.5% had active disease at baseline. In CD, all groups experienced a decrease in disease activity (control -5.2 ± 5.0 to 3.7 ± 3.6, TELE-IBD EOW 4.7 ± 4.1 to 4.2 ± 3.9, and TELE-IBD weekly 4.2 ± 4.2 to 3.2 ± 3.4, p < 0.0001 for each of the groups) In UC, only controls had a significant decrease in disease activity (control 2.9 ± 3.1 to 1.4 ± 1.4, p = 0.01, TELE-IBD EOW 2.7 ± 3.1 to 1.7 ± 1.9, p = 0.35, and TELE-IBD Weekly 2.5 ± 2.5 to 2.0 ± 1.8, p = 0.31). QoL increased in all groups; the increase was significant only in TELE-IBD EOW (control 168.1 ± 34.0 to 179.3 ± 28.2, p = 0.06, TELE-IBD EOW 172.3 ± 33.1 to 181.5 ± 28.2, p = 0.03, and TELE-IBD Weekly 172.3 ± 34.5 to 179.2 ± 32.8, p = 0.10). Unadjusted and adjusted changes in disease activity and QoL were not significantly different among groups. Healthcare utilization increased in all groups. TELE-IBD weekly were less likely to have IBD-related hospitalizations and more likely to have non-invasive diagnostic tests and electronic encounters compared to controls; both TELE-IBD groups had decreased non-IBD related hospitalizations and increased telephone calls compared to controls. DISCUSSION: Disease activity and QoL, although improved in all participants, were not improved further through use of the TELE-IBD system. TELE-IBD participants experienced a decrease in hospitalizations with an associated increase in non-invasive diagnostic tests, telephone calls and electronic encounters. Research is needed to determine if TELE-IBD can be improved through patient engagement and whether it can decrease healthcare utilization by replacing standard care.

Encontrándonos para un buen parto. (Muezlemayen kume koñin) / Finding ourselves with a good delivery

En el año 1993 se promulga en Chile, la Ley Nº19.253 o Ley Indígena, con el espíritu de promover el respeto, la protección y el desarrollo de los pueblos indígenas. Esta ley señala que "es deber de la sociedad y del Estado en particular, a través de sus instituciones, respetar, proteger y promover el desarrollo de los indígenas, sus culturas, familias y comunidades". El estado reconoce que los indígenas en Chile son descendientes de agrupaciones humanas precolombinas que conservan manifestaciones étnicas y culturales propias donde la tierra es el fundamento principal de su existencia y cultura. En este contexto el Estado comienza un proceso de validación de la problemática indígena y la implementación de medidas tendientes al abordaje de la situación indígena en nuestro país, desde la construcción de políticas sociales específicas. Se reconoce que los pueblos indígenas han sido fuertemente discriminados dentro de la sociedad nacional, por ello, se inicia una política de acción que procure una igualdad real, por sobre la igualdad jurídica o formal, reconociendo en esto un imperativo ético. Como sector del estado, salud lleva años de trabajo intentando avanzar en la pertinencia de las políticas públicas hacia el mundo indígena, bajo un marco de principios donde se reconoce la diversidad cultural, el derecho a la participación los derechos políticos de los indígenas. En este escenario la reforma de salud recoge estos planteamientos y enfatiza la interculturalidad en salud como parte de las grandes tareas a desarrollar en Salud Pública y en la Red Asistencial de Servicios de Salud. A partir de 1996 se formula el Programa de Salud y Pueblos Indígenas, y en septiembre del año 2001, nace el Programa Orígenes, que en una primera fase centra su acción en 642 comunidades indígenas de las regiones I, II, VIII, IX y X, abarcando un total aproximado de 24.500 beneficiarios directos en 44 comunas de alta densidad de población indígena.