Commitment to inclusion: The importance of collaboration in gender equity work.

Despite decades of faculty professional development programs created to prepare women for leadership, gender inequities persist in salary, promotion, and leadership roles. Indeed, men still earn more than women, are more likely than women to hold the rank of professor, and hold the vast majority of positions of power in academic medicine. Institutions demonstrate commitment to their faculty's growth by investing resources, including creating faculty development programs. These programs are essential to help prepare women to lead and navigate the highly matrixed, complex systems of academic medicine. However, data still show that women persistently lag behind men in their career advancement and salary. Clearly, training women to adapt to existing structures and norms alone is not sufficient. To effectively generate organizational change, leaders with power and resources must commit to gender equity. This article describes several efforts by the Office of Faculty in the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine to broaden inclusivity in collaborative work for gender equity. The authors are women and men leaders in the Office of Faculty, which is within the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine dean's office and includes Women in Science and Medicine. Here, we discuss potential methods to advance gender equity using inclusivity based on our institutional experience and on the findings of other studies. Ongoing data collection to evaluate programmatic outcomes in the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine will be reported in the future.

Perceptions of the Minority Tax Experienced by Faculty and Students Underrepresented in Medicine at the University of Wisconsin.

INTRODUCTION: The minority tax in academic medicine can be defined as the additional responsibilities placed on underrepresented in medicine (URiM) faculty, staff, and students in the name of diversity. Often this looks like participating in additional diversity committees, recruitment efforts, and mentorship activities. These extra responsibilities often are not recognized, not included in promotions, and take time from other clinical, research, and traditional scholarly responsibilities. OBJECTIVES: There is a significant gap in the literature examining the experiences of URiM-identifying faculty and students in relation to the minority tax. Our goal was to do a quality improvement project to explore this gap through interviewing URiM-identifying faculty and conducting focus groups with URiM-identifying students, with the goal of making recommendations to help reduce the minority tax burdens to this community. METHODS: A scoping literature review on the minority tax burden in academic medicine was used to inform the development of questions to use in focus groups of URiM University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health (UWSMPH) students and interviews of URiM UWSMPH faculty members. After development of a facilitation guide, we conducted three 1-hour focus groups with 14 students who identified as URiM and did eight 30-minute interviews with faculty who identified as URiM. A codebook was generated using inductive analysis after reviewing transcripts. Coding was performed independently with 2 separate coders in order to ensure inter-coder reliability. RESULTS: Ninety-one percent of students and 62.5% of faculty endorsed experiencing the minority tax at UWSMPH. Faculty also reported increasing feelings of support due to UWSMPH programs that support URiM faculty. Students reported the minority tax being central to their role as URiM students. Both students and faculty reported that the additional burdens of the minority tax took time away from traditional scholarly activities that were essential for promotion (faculty) or residency (students). CONCLUSIONS: The minority tax burden experienced by URiM faculty and students may negatively affect their careers, as they note spending more time on activities that may not be valued for promotion. It is essential to address these burdens in order to achieve equity within the medical institution.

Faculty members as academic knowledge brokers in Iran's health sector: a social network analysis study.

BACKGROUND: Interaction between researchers and policymakers is an essential factor to facilitate the evidence-informed policymaking. One of the effective ways to establish this relationship and promote evidence-informed policymaking is to employ people or organizations that can play the role of knowledge brokers. This study aims to analyze the communication network and interactions between researchers and policymakers in Iran's health sector and identify key people serving as academic knowledge brokers. METHODS: This study was a survey research. Using a census approach, we administered a sociometric survey to faculty members in the health field in top ten Iranian medical universities to construct academic-policymaker network using social network analysis method. Network maps were generated using UCINET and NetDraw software. We used Indegree Centrality, Outdegree Centrality, and Betweenness Centrality indicators to determine knowledge brokers in the network. RESULTS: The drawn network had a total of 188 nodes consisting of 94 university faculty members and 94 policymakers at three national, provincial, and university levels. The network comprised a total of 177 links, with 125 connecting to policymakers and 52 to peers. Of 56 faculty members, we identified four knowledge brokers. Six policymakers were identified as key policymakers in the network, too. CONCLUSIONS: It seems that the flow of knowledge produced by research in the health field in Iran is not accomplished well from the producers of research evidence to the users of knowledge. Therefore, it seems necessary to consider incentive and support mechanisms to strengthen the interaction between researchers and policymakers in Iran's health sector.

Surgeon compensation in academic medicine.

Academic surgery is the best career one could ever aspire to have; however, given the long duration of training and the anticipated education debt, surgeon compensation has not kept pace with the compensation of other comparable careers. As surgeon compensation has experienced increased downward pressure, it has become of growing importance to those in academic medicine/surgery. Competitive compensation is necessary, even if not sufficient, for successful faculty recruitment and retention. The optimal compensation system should encourage the best possible patient care, inspire teamwork, maximize the department's or physician practice's ability to recruit and retain faculty, support all missions, and be viewed as equitable and transparent. The goal of an optimal compensation system is to have faculty minds focused on things other than compensation-those elements of their job that are most important, such as career development, multidisciplinary clinical programs, research, and education. One way to ensure that compensation stays in the background for academic surgeons is for leadership to keep this front and center. Compensation plans can influence behavior and time management and affect the clinical, academic, and educational contributions of surgeons and physicians of all specialties. As we strive to optimize the productivity and engagement of a health system's most valuable resource-those who deliver surgical care and create new knowledge-compensation is an important variable in need of constant attention.

How to Create a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Curriculum: More Than Checking a Box.

We are beginning to accept and address the role that medicine as an institution played in legitimizing scientific racism and creating structural barriers to health equity. There is a call for greater emphasis in medical education on explaining our role in perpetuating health inequities and educating learners on how bias and racism lead to poor health outcomes for historically marginalized communities. Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI; also referred to as EDI) and antiracism are key parts of patient care and medical education as they empower health professionals to be advocates for their patients, leading to better health care outcomes and more culturally and socially humble health care professionals. The Liaison Committee on Medical Education has set forth standards to include structural competency and other equity principles in the medical curriculum, but medical schools are still struggling with how to specifically do so. Here, we highlight a stepwise approach to systematically developing and implementing medical educational curriculum content with a DEI and antiracism lens. This article serves as a blueprint to prepare institution leadership, medical faculty, staff, and learners in how to effectively begin or scale up their current DEI and antiracism curricular efforts.

Comparative analysis of gender disparity in academic positions based on U.S. region and STEM discipline.

Despite a move toward gender parity in the United States (U.S.) workforce, a large gender gap persists in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); this is particularly true for academic (i.e., instructor and tenure track) STEM positions. This gap increases as women advance through the traditional steps of academia, with the highest degree of gender disparity in tenured positions. As policies, politics, and culture, which all contribute to gender equity across the world, vary across regions in the United States, we expect that the gender gap in STEM might also vary across geographic regions. Here, we evaluated over 20,000 instructor and tenure track positions in university STEM departments across the U.S. to evaluate whether and how the geographic region of a university might determine its proportion of women in STEM academic positions. Similar to previous research, regardless of geographic region, more men were employed in both tenure track and instructor positions across STEM fields. However, variation existed regionally within the U.S., with the Mountain region employing the lowest proportion of women in tenure track positions and the East North Central and Pacific regions employing the greatest proportion. We expect this regional variation could be caused by differences in state and local policies, regional representation, and mentorship, resulting in inconsistent support for women, leading to differences in work environments, hiring, and job retention rates across the country. A better understanding of which geographic areas within the U.S. have more equal distributions of women in the STEM field will help us to identify the specific mechanisms that facilitate more equal and inclusive opportunities for women and other underrepresented groups across all levels of STEM academia.

Gender Disparity in Non-ACGME (Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education) Otolaryngology Fellowship Leadership.

OBJECTIVE: Women are underrepresented among practicing otolaryngology physicians with increasing disparities in leadership roles and higher levels of professional attainment in academic medicine. The purpose of this study is to determine the gender gap among fellowship directors within specific otolaryngology subspecialties, and how this compares to disparities among all academic appointments held by otolaryngologists. Additionally, we seek to better understand how years practiced, H-index, professorship status, and academic productivity differ between men and women in fellowship director roles. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. Publicly available data from non-ACGME accredited otolaryngology fellowships was collected from department websites and Doximity including gender, years of practice, and professor status of fellowship directors. Scopus was used to find H-index for identified fellowship directors. Fisher's Exact tests were used to determine if significant gender disparity existed between each fellowship and academic otolaryngology as whole. H-index and years of practice were plotted for men and women comparing the slope of lines of best fit as a measure of academic productivity. SETTING: Non-ACGME accredited otolaryngology fellowships in the US. PARTICIPANTS: Fellowship directors in non-ACGME accredited otolaryngology fellowships. RESULTS: Among 174 fellowship positions in our analysis, head and neck (17.3% women), laryngology (17.2% women), rhinology (5.7% women), and facial plastics (8.1% women) had significantly lower overall women representation compared to academic otolaryngology (36.6% women) (p < 0.05). As fellowship directors, women were significantly more productive than men given years practiced and H-index (p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Gender disparities among otolaryngologists are amplified in the role of fellowship directors compared to broader academic otolaryngology. This is true despite women in these roles demonstrating higher academic productivity.

You Want to be a Surgical Leader? Consider Training Elsewhere - An Observation of How Training Background May Impact Leadership Selection.

OBJECTIVE: The significance of thought differences has always held importance in medicine, but it could be considered as increasingly acknowledged and valued to a greater extent in recent times as more emphasis is placed on diversity, equity, and inclusion. These unique perspectives have been examined according to race, gender, and ethnicity, but there is limited published data examining the prevalence of leadership roles within surgical departments in terms of training background. Our main objective is to identify trends in surgical leaders' education, and emphasize training diversity in surgical leadership. DESIGN: A descriptive study of the training background of all surgical academic leaders. SETTING: This internet search was performed at a tertiary care, academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Academic chairpersons, division directors, and program directors. RESULTS: 124 programs had pertinent information available. There was a mean of 7.6 leaders per institute examined: total 939 positions (119 chairs, 704 division directors, 116 program directors). 90/119 (76%) of the Chairs led at institutions outside of the places they completed their training. 4/119 (3%) did all their training at the same institution they chaired. 25/119 (21%) completed at least some but not all their training there, and later rose to the role of Chair. Among division directors, 217/704 (31%) did some training at that institution, and program directors were significantly more likely to have completed some training at their current institute (53/116, 46%; p = 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences when examined geographically. Women made up 18% of the leaders and were significantly more likely to lead as program director rather than a chair or division director (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A majority of surgery chairs hold positions at institutions where they did not complete their medical training. This suggests that outside perspective could be a contributing factor when searching for this position.

Accuracy of Entrustment-Based Assessment: Implications for Programs and Patients.

Background Although entrustment-supervision ratings are more intuitive compared to other rating scales, it is not known whether their use accurately assesses the appropriateness of care provided by a resident. Objective To determine the frequency of incorrect entrustment ratings assigned by faculty and whether accuracy of an entrustment-supervision scale differed by resident performance when the scripted resident performance level is known. Methods Faculty participants rated standardized residents in 10 videos using a 4-point entrustment-supervision scale. We calculated the frequency of rating a resident incorrectly. We performed generalizability (G) and decision (D) studies for all 10 cases (768 ratings) and repeated the analysis using only cases with an entrustment score of 2. Results The mean score by 77 raters for all videos was 2.87 (SD=0.86) with a mean of 2.37 (SD=0.72), 3.11 (SD=0.67) and 3.78 (SD=0.43) for the scripted levels of 2, 3, and 4. Faculty ratings differed from the scripted score for 331of 768 (43%) ratings. Most errors were ratings higher than the scripted score (223, 67%). G studies estimated the variance proportions of rater and case to be 4.99% and 54.29%. D studies estimated that 3 raters would need to watch 10 cases. The variance proportion of rater was 8.5% when the analysis was restricted to level 2 entrustment, requiring 15 raters to watch 5 cases. Conclusions Participants underestimated residents' potential need for greater supervision. Overall agreement between raters and scripted scores were low.

Review of the demographic and educational profiles of abdominal imaging fellowship program directors in the United States.

PURPOSE: To evaluate demographics, academic backgrounds, and scholarly activities of Program Directors (PDs) in Abdominal Imaging Fellowships in the United States (US), emphasizing gender representation, international origins, and academic milestones. METHODS: A list of Fellowships in Abdominal Imaging programs in the US was obtained from the Society of Abdominal Radiology. The search was expanded using the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database. Data for PDs were sourced from program websites, Healthgrades, Doximity, and Elsevier's Scopus. Metrics such as age, gender, education, academic rank, additional qualifications, prior leadership roles, publications, and h-indices were analyzed using R software. A two-tailed unpaired t-test was used to calculate the difference in means of scholarly activity between male and female PDs. RESULTS: 113 programs were identified: South (36.28%), Northeast (25.66%), Mid-West (20.35%), West (17.69%). Of 107 PDs, 54% male, 41% female, and average age 48 ± 9.4 years. 66.6% were US graduates, 29.2% were international graduates. Most were Assistant Professors (36.28%). 19.46% had degrees like M.P.H. or M.B.A. 45% had prior leadership roles. Average year of residency graduation was 2007. Mean publication count was 54.16, and mean h-index was 14.663. Male PDs had higher publication counts and h-indices than female PDs (p= 0.009 and p= 0.0019 respectively). CONCLUSION: In Abdominal Imaging Fellowship programs in the US, there is an increasing representation of females in Program Director roles. However, research led by female PDs remains less prevalent. The field of Abdominal Imaging values contributions from international graduates and insights from Assistant Professors.

"It's Time to Do It, to Make It a Major Part of Medicine": Faculty Experience With a Shift Toward an Antioppressive Medical School Curriculum.

PURPOSE: Health inequities compel medical educators to transform curricula to prepare physicians to improve the health of diverse populations. This mandate requires curricular focus on antioppression, which is a change for faculty who learned and taught under a different paradigm. This study used the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) to explore faculty perceptions of and experiences with a shift to a curriculum that prioritizes antioppressive content and process. METHOD: In this qualitative study, authors interviewed faculty course directors and teachers at the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine from March 2021 to January 2022. Questions addressed faculty experience and understanding regarding the curriculum shift toward antioppression, perceptions of facilitators and barriers to change, and their interactions with colleagues and learners about this change. Using the CBAM components as sensitizing concepts, the authors conducted thematic analysis. RESULTS: Sixteen faculty participated. Their perceptions of their experience with the first year of an antioppression curriculum initiative were characterized by 3 broad themes: (1) impetus for change, (2) personal experience with antioppressive curricular topics, and (3) strategies necessary to accomplish the change. Faculty described 3 driving forces for the shift toward antioppressive curricula: moral imperative, response to national and local events, and evolving culture of medicine. Despite broad alignment with the change, faculty expressed uncertainties on 3 subthemes: uncertainty about what is an antioppressive curriculum, the scientific perspective, and fear. Faculty also reflected on primary facilitators and barriers to accomplishing the change. CONCLUSIONS: The shift to an antioppressive curriculum compels faculty to increase their knowledge and skills and adopt a critical, self-reflective lens on the interplay of medicine and oppression. This study's findings can inform faculty development efforts and highlight curricular leadership and resources needed to support faculty through this type of curricular change.

Sex Disparities in Academic Productivity and Rank Among Abdominal Transplant Faculty in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine sex differences in academic rank and productivity among members of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons in the United States. METHODS: Cross-sectional, focusing on current board-certified abdominal transplant surgeons in the United States. Demographic factors such as sex, region, and faculty rank were collected from institutional websites. Academic metrics, including H-index, total publications, and relative citation ratio, were collected from Scopus and iCite. RESULTS: We identified 536 surgeon members of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons with an academic institution. The majority were men (83%). Men were in practice longer than women (17.9 ± 11 vs 11.7 ± 9 years, P < .0001) and had higher academic metrics, including H-index (25.6 ± 20 vs16.4 ± 14, P < .0001) and total publications (110 ± 145 vs 58.8 ± 69, P < .0001). There was a significant difference in faculty appointments by sex (P < .05), with men showing evidence of increased academic advancement. After adjusting for academic rank, PhD status, and location of medical school and residency, women remained associated with a lower H-index on multivariate analysis (P < .01). CONCLUSION: Sex disparities in academic rank and achievement are present among transplant surgical faculty in the United States, and future efforts are needed to promote sex equity in transplant surgery academia.

Does Sponsorship Promote Equity in Career Advancement in Academic Medicine? A Scoping Review.

Sponsorship describes a set of actions wherein an influential champion (sponsor) uses their position to actively support a colleague's career by helping them gain visibility, recognition, and/or positions. There is growing awareness of the importance of sponsorship for career advancement in academic medicine, particularly for women and those who are historically underrepresented and excluded in medicine (UIM). This scoping review examines the current landscape of evidence, and knowledge gaps, on sponsorship as it relates to career advancement in academic medicine for women and UIM faculty. We searched peer-reviewed literature in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science (WoS) over the past 50 years (from 1973 through July 2023). Sixteen studies were included in the final review. We found relative consensus on sponsorship definition and value to career advancement. Heterogeneity in study design limited our ability to directly compare study outcomes. All included studies focused on gender differences in sponsorship: two of four quantitative studies found men were more likely to receive sponsorship, one reported no gender differences, and one was insufficiently powered. All but one of the qualitative studies reported gender differences, with women less likely to access or be identified for sponsorship. The mixed-methods studies suggested sponsorship may vary by career stage. Only two studies analyzed sponsorship for UIM populations. The existing data are inconclusive regarding best ways to measure and assess sponsorship, what institutional support (e.g., structured programs, formal recognition, or incentives for sponsorship) should look like, and at what career stage sponsorship is most important. Addressing this knowledge gap will be critically important for understanding what sponsorship best practices, if any, should be used to promote equity in career advancement in academic medicine. We advocate for commitment at the institutional and national levels to develop new infrastructure for transparently and equitably supporting women and UIM in career advancement.

Gender Representation Among Ophthalmology Fellowship Directors in 2022.

PURPOSE: Women are underrepresented in several medical specialties, including ophthalmology. Reducing disparities is critical in diversifying perspectives and increasing equity within ophthalmology, both of which can ultimately improve care delivery. We examined ophthalmic fellowship programs directors in the United States to investigate gender disparities by subspecialty. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of ophthalmology fellowship program directors in academic medical centers. The primary outcome measure was a descriptive analysis of current fellowship directors in 2022 when stratified by subspecialty and demographic features. RESULTS: Analysis was conducted on 358 fellowship directors in the United States. Twenty-nine percent of directors were women. Female directors had significantly fewer years since residency graduation compared with male peers (17 vs 24; P < .001); however, no differences were observed by program type (P = .896) or location (P = 0.104). Differences in female director representation were observed by subspecialty (P < .001), with the greatest percentage of women in pediatric ophthalmology (54%), other (oncology and pathology) fellowships (50%), and medical retina (40%). The subspecialties with the lowest percentage of female directors were oculoplastic and reconstructive surgery (13%) surgical retina and vitreous (16%). CONCLUSION: There are disparities in female representation in academic leadership positions across ophthalmic subspecialties. Addressing this difference may have critical impacts on career advancement and opportunities available for marginalized groups in medicine.

Advanced degrees, gender, and professional rank in surgery, disparities in academic medicine.

INTRODUCTION: Women comprise nearly half of all residents in training, yet there is a significant disparity of women in academic leadership. Surgical subspecialties are dominated by men in both percentages of physicians and leadership positions. We sought to examine the association of advanced non-medical degrees with academic rank and gender in academic surgery departments. METHODS: Faculty from 126 ACGME-accredited academic medical centers were analyzed to identify faculty gender as described in online biographical information, advanced non-medical degrees, academic rank, and additional leadership positions held. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: 4536 surgeons were identified, 69.3% men, 27.3% female, and 3.3% unlisted. Female surgeons were more likely to hold advanced non-doctoral degrees than men (18.2% vs. 13.8%, p â€‹< â€‹0.002). Among those with advanced degrees, PhDs were held by 3.3% of women and 5.7% of men (p â€‹< â€‹0.001). Female surgeons were less likely to hold the rank of Professor than male surgeons (15.8% vs 30.3%, p â€‹< â€‹0.001), and more likely to hold the rank of Assistant Professor than male surgeons (51.9% vs 36.1%, p â€‹< â€‹0.001). This likelihood remained true when analyzing only surgeons with one or more advanced non-medical degrees. Men were more likely to be Chair of Surgery (3.0%), Division Chief (9.6%), and Research Chair (0.5%); compared to women (1.3%; 4.8%; 0.2%; p â€‹= â€‹0.001, <0.001, 0.21 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: There continues to be a significant male predominance in general surgery. Gender discrepancy is also seen in professional rank and academic title despite women holding more advanced degrees. Advanced degrees are currently considered academic qualifications, but this does not reflect surgical academic leadership roles or rank.

Moving Beyond the Dichotomous Assessment of Professionalism in the Internal Medicine Clerkship: Results of a National Survey of Clerkship Directors.

PURPOSE: This study examines how internal medicine clerkship faculty and leadership conceptualize professionalism and professional behaviors and attitudes, identifies whether and how faculty use metrics to assess professionalism and factor it into clerkship grades, and describes barriers that prevent faculty from feeling prepared to support the development of professional behaviors in students. METHOD: The Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine opened a call for thematic survey section proposals to its physician-faculty members, blind-reviewed all submissions, and selected 4 based on internal medicine clinical clerkship training experience relevance. The survey launched on October 5 and closed on December 7, 2021. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 137 core clerkship directors (CDs) at Liaison Committee on Medical Education-accredited medical schools, 103 (75.2%) responded to the survey. Of 102 respondents (1 nonrespondent), 84 (82.4%) identified professional behavior lapses in involvement and 60 (58.8%) identified introspection lapses. Of 103 respondents, 97 (94.2%) reported that their clerkships ask clinical faculty and residents to formally evaluate professionalism, and 64 (62.1%) reported that they factor professionalism assessments into final clerkship grades. CDs reported multiple barriers to addressing professionalism directly with students, including logistical barriers, professionalism assessment subjectivity concerns, and the possible adverse effect of an unprofessional label for students. CONCLUSIONS: Professionalism assessment and remediation in medical education currently center on a deficit model that seeks to identify and remediate professionalism lapses, rather than a developmental model that seeks to nurture growth. This dichotomous characterization of behaviors as professional or unprofessional limits assessment and can adversely affect the learning environment. The authors propose a shift to a developmental model that considers professionalism as a continuous process parallel to the acquisition of clinical skills and medical knowledge.

At the Intersection of Intersectionality: Race and Gender Diversity Among Surgical Faculty and Trainees.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the representation of intersectional (ie, racial/ethnic and gender) identities among surgical faculty versus medical students. BACKGROUND: Health disparities are pervasive in medicine, but diverse physicians may help the medical profession achieve health equity. METHODS: Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges for 140 programs (2011/2012-2019/2020) were analyzed for students and full-time surgical faculty. Underrepresented in medicine (URiM) was defined as Black/African American, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Hispanic/Latino/Spanish Origin, or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander. Non-White included URiM plus Asian, multiracial, and non-citizen permanent residents. Linear regression was used to estimate the association of year and proportions of URiM and non-White female and male faculty with proportions of URiM and non-White students. RESULTS: Medical students were comprised of more White (25.2% vs 14.4%), non-White (18.8% vs 6.6%), and URiM (9.6% vs 2.8%) women and concomitantly fewer men across all groups versus faculty (all P < 0.01). Although the proportion of White and non-White female faculty increased over time (both P ≤ 0.001), there was no significant change among non-White URiM female faculty, nor among non-White male faculty, regardless of whether they were URiM or not. Having more URiM male faculty was associated with having more non-White female students (estimate = +14.5% students/100% increase in faculty, 95% CI: 1.0% to 8.1%, P = 0.04), and this association was especially pronounced for URiM female students (estimate = +46.6% students/100% increase in faculty, 95% CI: 36.9% to 56.3%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: URiM faculty representation has not improved despite a positive association between having more URiM male faculty and having more diverse students.

Disparities in Promotion and Retention Rates Among Underrepresented in Medicine Faculty in U.S. Ophthalmology Departments.

PURPOSE: This study examines the rates and trends of faculty promotions within the field of ophthalmology, with comparative emphasis on the rates of promotion among underrepresented in medicine (URiM) faculty. DESIGN: A retrospective panel study was conducted using the Association of American Medical Colleges Faculty Roster database. METHODS: We used the Association of American Medical Colleges Faculty Roster data to assess trends in academic faculty promotions within U.S. ophthalmology departments. Full-time assistant and associate professors appointed between 2000 and 2010 were included in the analysis, and tracked until November 2021 to determine promotion rates. Pearson χ2 and Fisher exact tests were used to evaluate differences in promotion and retention rates based on gender, race and ethnicity, advanced degree, and tenure status. RESULTS: The demographics of 1436 assistant and 680 associate faculty members were obtained for analysis through the Association of American Medical Colleges. Black faculty had lower promotion rates when compared with White faculty (20% vs 37%, P < .001). Faculty with MD and PhD degrees demonstrated higher promotion rates than faculty with MD degrees alone (59% vs 36%, P < .001). In addition, faculty not on tenure track had lower rates of promotion than those on tenure track (35% vs 48%, P < .001). With respect to faculty retention, among assistant and associate professors combined, Black faculty and faculty without tenure track appointments were more likely to leave academic medicine (46% vs 33%, P < .001) and (36% vs 27%, P < .001), respectively. CONCLUSION: In this study, promotion rates varied significantly by race/ethnicity. Specifically, Black faculty had lower rates of promotion and retention in academic medicine. These findings underscore the need to explore and implement strategies and policies to address equity in promotion rates and retention of URiM faculty within academic ophthalmology.