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.

Workplace Harassment, Cyber Incivility, and Climate in Academic Medicine.

Importance: The culture of academic medicine may foster mistreatment that disproportionately affects individuals who have been marginalized within a given society (minoritized groups) and compromises workforce vitality. Existing research has been limited by a lack of comprehensive, validated measures, low response rates, and narrow samples as well as comparisons limited to the binary gender categories of male or female assigned at birth (cisgender). Objective: To evaluate academic medical culture, faculty mental health, and their relationship. Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 830 faculty members in the US received National Institutes of Health career development awards from 2006-2009, remained in academia, and responded to a 2021 survey that had a response rate of 64%. Experiences were compared by gender, race and ethnicity (using the categories of Asian, underrepresented in medicine [defined as race and ethnicity other than Asian or non-Hispanic White], and White), and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ+) status. Multivariable models were used to explore associations between experiences of culture (climate, sexual harassment, and cyber incivility) with mental health. Exposures: Minoritized identity based on gender, race and ethnicity, and LGBTQ+ status. Main Outcomes and Measures: Three aspects of culture were measured as the primary outcomes: organizational climate, sexual harassment, and cyber incivility using previously developed instruments. The 5-item Mental Health Inventory (scored from 0 to 100 points with higher values indicating better mental health) was used to evaluate the secondary outcome of mental health. Results: Of the 830 faculty members, there were 422 men, 385 women, 2 in nonbinary gender category, and 21 who did not identify gender; there were 169 Asian respondents, 66 respondents underrepresented in medicine, 572 White respondents, and 23 respondents who did not report their race and ethnicity; and there were 774 respondents who identified as cisgender and heterosexual, 31 as having LGBTQ+ status, and 25 who did not identify status. Women rated general climate (5-point scale) more negatively than men (mean, 3.68 [95% CI, 3.59-3.77] vs 3.96 [95% CI, 3.88-4.04], respectively, P < .001). Diversity climate ratings differed significantly by gender (mean, 3.72 [95% CI, 3.64-3.80] for women vs 4.16 [95% CI, 4.09-4.23] for men, P < .001) and by race and ethnicity (mean, 4.0 [95% CI, 3.88-4.12] for Asian respondents, 3.71 [95% CI, 3.50-3.92] for respondents underrepresented in medicine, and 3.96 [95% CI, 3.90-4.02] for White respondents, P = .04). Women were more likely than men to report experiencing gender harassment (sexist remarks and crude behaviors) (71.9% [95% CI, 67.1%-76.4%] vs 44.9% [95% CI, 40.1%-49.8%], respectively, P < .001). Respondents with LGBTQ+ status were more likely to report experiencing sexual harassment than cisgender and heterosexual respondents when using social media professionally (13.3% [95% CI, 1.7%-40.5%] vs 2.5% [95% CI, 1.2%-4.6%], respectively, P = .01). Each of the 3 aspects of culture and gender were significantly associated with the secondary outcome of mental health in the multivariable analysis. Conclusions and Relevance: High rates of sexual harassment, cyber incivility, and negative organizational climate exist in academic medicine, disproportionately affecting minoritized groups and affecting mental health. Ongoing efforts to transform culture are necessary.

Addressing Gender Disparity: Increase in Female Leadership Increases Gender Equality in Program Director and Fellow Ranks.

INTRODUCTION: Women make up 15% of the total number of practicing gastroenterology (GI) physicians in the US. Despite this disparity, only 33% of the current GI fellows are female. Increasing female GIs is a major goal of all four GI societies. It is known that gender disparity exists in the field of gastroenterology, and women are underrepresented in the leadership ranks and trainee level at academic programs. Whether an increase in female leadership in academic medicine is associated with an increase in female program directors and trainees is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess this relationship in GI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected via a standardized protocol from all 173 US gastroenterology fellowship programs up until October 2018 from program websites and supplemented by online surveys completed by program coordinators. Any missing information was collected by calling the program coordinators. Data were collected on gender and academic rank of the program director, associate program director, division chief, chair of medicine, program size, academic center affiliation, number, and academic rank of female faculty and geographic region. The association was assessed using a Chi-square test or independent samples t test. RESULTS: In leadership positions, men were listed as comprising 86% of chairs, 82% of division chiefs, 76% of program directors and 63% of associate program directors. Forty-three percent of programs did not have female representation at any leadership level. The presence of a female program director or female associate program director was associated with an increase in the number of female fellows (4.03 vs 3.20; p = 0.076; 4.26 vs 3.36; p = 0.041), respectively. Overall, the presence of a female in any leadership position led to an increase in the number of female fellows (4.04 females vs 2.87 females; p = 0.007) enrolled in a program. If a GI division chief was male, the program director was more likely to be male as well (81% male vs. 18.8% female). Conversely, having a female division chief was likely to lead to a more equitable program director representation, 54% female to 48% male (p value < 0.0001, OR 5.03 95% CI 2.04-12.3). Furthermore, if either the internal medicine department chair or GI chief was female, the proportion of female program directors increased to 41% as compared to 19% if both were male (p value < 0.0001, OR 2.99 95% CI 1.34-6.6). CONCLUSION: Women are significantly underrepresented in the number of practicing gastroenterologists, at all levels of leadership in GI fellowship programs, and at the fellow level. Increasing the number of women in fellowship leadership positions is associated with an increase in female program directors and trainees. Per our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the relationship between female leadership in fellowship programs and the gender of trainees. Increasing female representation in leadership positions would not only address current gender disparity, but it may also increase the number of female future GI trainees.

Gender disparities among leadership in academic surgical publishing over the past decade.

BACKGROUND: Women account for 19 % of practicing surgeons in the United States, with representation decreasing with higher academic rank. Less is known about the proportion of women in editorial leadership positions at surgical journals. The objective of this study was to examine gender representation among editorial leadership at high-impact surgical journals. METHODS: The five journals with the highest impact factors in general, cardiothoracic, plastics, otolaryngology, orthopedics, urology, vascular, and neurosurgery were identified. Data were abstracted on the proportion of women editors-in-chief (EIC) and editorial board members between 2010 and 2020 to determine how these demographics changed over time. RESULTS: Multiple fields had no women EIC over the past decade (orthopedics, urology, cardiothoracic, neurosurgery). In all other fields, women were a minority of EIC. In 2020, women made up 7.9 % of EIC and 11.1 % of editorial boards in surgical journals. CONCLUSIONS: Women remain under-represented among leadership at high-impact surgical journals, with varying improvement over the past decade among different subspecialties.

NASA-TLX assessment of workload in resident physicians and faculty surgeons covering trauma, surgical intensive care unit, and emergency general surgery services.

BACKGROUND: Higher workload is associated with burnout and lower performance. Therefore, we aim to assess shift-related factors associated with higher workload on EGS, ICU, and trauma surgery services. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, faculty surgeons and surgery residents completed a survey after each EGS, ICU, or trauma shift, including shift details and a modified NASA-TLX. RESULTS: Seventeen faculty and 12 residents completed 174 and 48 surveys after working scheduled 12-h and 24-h shifts, respectively (response rates: faculty - 62%, residents - 42%). NASA-TLX was significantly increased with a higher physician subjective fatigue level. Further, seeing more consults or performing more operations than average significantly increased workload. Finally, NASA-TLX was significantly higher for faculty when they felt their shift was more difficult than expected. CONCLUSIONS: Higher volume clinical responsibilities and higher subjective fatigue levels are independently associated with higher workload. Designing shift coverage to expand on busier days may decrease workload, impacting burnout and shift performance.

Post-residency medical education fellowships: a scoping review.

The authors conducted a scoping review to investigate the structure, content, and potential impact of post-residency medical education fellowships. The authors searched eight databases to identify English-language articles describing longitudinal, post-residency medical fellowships that both focused on medical education and described the structure and content of the curriculum. The authors summarized the findings of each article and, for those articles that included a program evaluation, assessed the potential impact of the program via the Kirkpatrick's Four-Level Training Evaluation Model and the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument. Nine articles, describing a total of ten post-residency medical education fellowships, met inclusion criteria. Half of the programs were dedicated medical education fellowships and half were medical education tracks within a subspecialty fellowship. The content and educational strategies varied, with no two programs having the same curriculum. Most programs most focused on teaching skills, adult learning theory, curricular development, and medical education research/scholarship. Most programs used project-based learning, workshops, and faculty mentorship as educational strategies. Six of the articles included an evaluation of their program(s), all of which suggested positive changes, at least at the level of fellow behavior (Kirkpatrick level 3), and designs limited the strength of any conclusions drawn. This scoping review highlights the variation among medical education fellowships and the need for common curricular components, as well as program evaluation, across and within these fellowships. Additional assessment at higher levels of trainee outcomes will help guide the creation and revision of medical education fellowships, and inform the development of a core curriculum shared across programs. Such a core curriculum could then serve as the foundation for a certification program, by which a medical educator's expertise could be recognized, thus elevating medical education to the stature it deserves within the academic mission.

Education Morbidity and Mortality: Reviving Intraoperative Teaching and Learning.

BACKGROUND: Using the platform of morbidity and mortality conference, we developed and executed a combined faculty-resident intervention called "Education M&M" to discuss challenges faced by both parties in the operating room (OR), identify realistic solutions, and implement action plans. This study aimed to investigate the impact of this intervention on resident OR training. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two resident case presentations were followed by audience discussion and recommendations regarding actionable solutions aimed at improving resident OR training from an expert faculty panel. Postintervention surveys were completed by participants immediately and 2 mo later to assess perceived short and long-term impact on OR teaching and/or learning and the execution of two recommended solutions. Descriptive statistical analysis was applied. RESULTS: Immediate post-intervention surveys (n = 44) indicated that 81.8% of participants enjoyed the M&M "a lot"; 90.1% said they would use some or a lot of the ideas presented. Awareness of OR teaching/learning challenges before and after the M&M improved from 3.0 to 3.7 (P = 0.00001) for faculty and 3.0 to 3.9 for trainees (P = 0.00004). Understanding of OR teaching and/or learning approaches improved from 3.1 to 3.7 for faculty (P = 0.00004) and 2.7 to 3.9 for trainees (P = 0.00001). In 2-mo post-intervention surveys, most residents had experienced two recommended solutions (71% and 88%) in the OR, but self-reported changes to faculty behavior did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: A department-wide education M&M could be an effective approach to enhance mutual communication between faculty members and residents around OR teaching/learning by identifying program-specific challenges and potential actionable solutions.

Career Development Considerations for Academic Physician Mentees and Mentors in the Time of COVID-19: Jump in or Just Dip a Toe?

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted medical research, pushing mentors and mentees to decide if COVID-19 research would be germane to the early career investigator's developing research portfolio. With COVID-19 halting hundreds of federal trials involving non-COVID-19 research, mentors and mentees must also consider the broader moral calling of contributing to COVID-19 research. At the time of writing, the National Institutes of Health had responded to the pandemic with significant funding for COVID-19 research. However, because this pandemic is a new phenomenon, few mentors have expertise in the disease and relevant established resources. As a result, many mentors are unable to provide insight on COVID-19 research to early career investigators considering a pivot toward research related to this disease. The authors suggest 4 ways for mentees and mentors to respond to the changes the pandemic has brought to research funding and opportunities: (1) include COVID-19 research in existing portfolios to diversify intellectual opportunities and reduce funding risks; (2) negotiate the mentor-mentee relationship and roles and expectations early in project discussions-considering, as relevant, the disproportionate burden of home responsibilities often borne by early career faculty members who are women and/or from a minority group; (3) address any mentor limitations in content expertise; and (4) if the decision is to pivot to COVID-19 research, select projects with implications generalizable beyond this pandemic to other infectious outbreaks or to the redesign of health care delivery. Mentors and mentees must weigh the relevance of COVID-19 research projects to the postpandemic world and the amount of available funding against the developing interests of early career investigators. Academic medical centers nationwide must enable seasoned and early career researchers to contribute meaningfully to COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 research.

Development of a peer review of operative teaching process and assessment tool.

BACKGROUND: While teaching evaluation systems are common in academia, very little information is available regarding formal coaching and peer review of teaching performance in surgery. This article is a report on the development and implementation of a peer review of operative teaching program. METHODS: Our process was designed using a multistep sequential model which included developing a peer review of teaching instrument that was piloted to study the efficacy and utility of the tool. RESULTS: Thirty-nine peer reviews of teaching were conducted. Among the most frequent challenges that faculty identified were allowing residents to struggle/give autonomy, judging when to take over the case, communicating effectively, being patient, balancing education and patient safety, and giving feedback. CONCLUSIONS: Our peer review of teaching program is systematic, feasible, and can be adopted by other surgery departments. Faculty's identified strengths and challenges have been incorporated into our faculty development curricula.

Institutional and Faculty Partnerships to Promote Learner Preparedness for Health Professions Education.

By the year 2060, it is projected that 57% of the US population will be members of minority groups, with no one group being the majority. While there is increasing diversity of the population, there remain significant disparities in morbidity and mortality affecting minority groups, and persistent low numbers of underrepresented students in the health professions. Increasing the numbers of underrepresented minority students in health care and decreasing the disparity gap have been a priority for many institutions. Increasing diversity requires an approach that not only involves health professions schools but also involves undergraduate institutions, faculty, and other professionals who provide pre-health training to students. In 2018, a group of academic medicine leaders convened the Innovators, Collaborators, and Leaders conference with faculty at institutions across the state of North Carolina to discuss ways to improve learner preparedness for health professions education and increase numbers of underrepresented students pursuing health careers. In this manuscript, the authors share results from the conference and how institutional and faculty partnerships can promote learner preparedness for health professions education.

Prioritizing Diversity in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery: Starting a Conversation.

Academic centers embody the ideals of otolaryngology and are the specialty's port of entry. Building a diverse otolaryngology workforce-one that mirrors society-is critical. Otolaryngology continues to have an underrepresentation of racial and ethnic minorities. The specialty must therefore redouble efforts, becoming more purposeful in mentoring, recruiting, and retaining underrepresented minorities. Many programs have never had residents who are Black, Indigenous, or people of color. Improving narrow, leaky, or absent pipelines is a moral imperative, both to mitigate health care disparities and to help build a more just health care system. Diversity supports the tripartite mission of patient care, education, and research. This commentary explores diversity in otolaryngology with attention to the salient role of academic medical centers. Leadership matters deeply in such efforts, from culture to finances. Improving outreach, taking a holistic approach to resident selection, and improving mentorship and sponsorship complement advances in racial disparities to foster diversity.

Plastic Surgery Chairs and Program Directors: Are the Qualifications Different for Men and Women?

BACKGROUND: The gender disparity between the number of female and male chairs and program directors has been previously established. The aim of this study was to determine whether any differences in objective credentials existed between male and female plastic surgery department chairs/division chiefs and program directors. METHODS: Information about each plastic surgery program director and chair/chief was extracted from the websites of all institutions affiliated with a plastic surgery residency program. For each individual, information about the length of their career, number of fellowships completed, and number of publications was recorded. The two-tailed t test was used to compare differences between male and female chairs and program directors. RESULTS: A total of 99 chairs were recorded, of which nine (9.1 percent) were female. Of the 99 program directors, 13 (13.1 percent) were female. There was no difference in the number of years in practice or number of fellowships between men and women for either position. On average, male chairs had significantly fewer publications than female chairs (71.9 versus 128; p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the number of publications between male and female program directors. Compared to program directors, chairs had significantly more years in practice and numbers of publications, which held true for both men and women. CONCLUSIONS: Women are not only underrepresented in the department chair and program director positions, but also possess higher qualifications that may reflect differences in standards for promotion and appointment. Additional research is needed to elucidate the reasons behind the observed differences in qualifications.

Achieving Gender Equity Is Our Responsibility: Leadership Matters.

Across academic medicine, and particularly among faculty and medical school leadership, the status quo is unacceptable when it comes to gender diversity, equity, and inclusion. The Association of American Medical Colleges has launched a bold gender equity initiative, endorsed by its Board of Directors, to implore academic medical institutions to take meaningful and effective actions.Defining what progress should look like to guide these actions is worth deeper exploration. It is not enough to measure the representation of different genders at various levels of leadership within our institutions. Research and experience we share suggests more must be done, especially for women of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. What is needed is a fundamental conversation about privilege, intersectionality across different backgrounds, and progress.Institutional leaders have a choice to make. Will we make gender equity a top priority system-wide because we recognize that doing so leads to organizational excellence? Do we understand that establishing a robust, comprehensive definition of gender equity and how it is practiced will result in better outcomes for all? And are we ready and able to prioritize and be accountable for efforts that are measurable, with clear definitions of progress; driven and reinforced by leadership directives; inclusive of all, including men as well as women of diverse backgrounds and orientations; and systemic rather than ad-hoc? Implementing such actions requires initiating difficult conversations, making conscious choices, and modeling best practices from leaders who have successfully made gender equity a priority.

From Stigma to Validation: A Qualitative Assessment of a Novel National Program to Improve Retention of Physician-Scientists with Caregiving Responsibilities.

Background: Research is needed to improve understanding of work-life integration issues in academic medicine and to guide the implementation of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation's Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists (FRCS), a national initiative offering financial support to physician-scientists facing caregiving challenges. Materials and Methods: In 2018, as part of a prospective program evaluation, the authors conducted a qualitative study to examine FRCS program participants' initial impressions, solicit descriptions of their career and caregiving experiences, and inquire how such factors might influence their professional advancement. The authors invited all 33 awardees who had been granted FRCS funding in the first year of the program to participate in the study, of whom 28 agreed to complete an interview. Analysts evaluated de-identified transcripts and explicated the data using a thematic analysis approach. Results: While participants described aspects of a culture that harbor stigma against caregivers and impede satisfactory work-life integration, they also perceived an optimistic cultural shift taking place as a result of programs like the FRCS. Their comments indicated that the FRCS has the potential to influence culture if institutional leadership simultaneously fosters a community that validates individuals both as caregivers and as scientists. Conclusions: Insights garnered from this qualitative study suggest that there is a pressing need for institutional leaders to implement programs that can foster awareness and normalization of caregiving challenges. In addition to providing funding and other tangible resources, interventions should strive to reinforce a broader culture that affirms the presence of work-life integration challenges and openly embraces solutions.

From the sticky floor to the glass ceiling and everything in between: protocol for a systematic review of barriers and facilitators to clinical academic careers and interventions to address these, with a focus on gender inequality.

BACKGROUND: Gender inequality within academic medicine and dentistry is a well-recognised issue, but one which is not completely understood in terms of its causes, or interventions to facilitate equality. This systematic review aims to identify, critically appraise, and synthesise the literature on facilitators and barriers to progression through a clinical academic career across medicine and dentistry. It will also explore interventions developed to increase recruitment and retention to clinical academic careers, with a particular focus on gender inequality. METHODS: The search will cover five databases (MEDLINE (including MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, and MEDLINE Daily), Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, and Education Resource Information Center (ERIC)), reference lists, and forward citation searching. We will include studies of doctors, dentists, and/or those with a supervisory role over their careers, with or without an academic career. Outcomes will be study defined, but relate to success rates of joining or continuing within a clinical academic career, including but not limited to success in gaining funding support, proportion of time spent in academic work, and numbers of awards/higher education qualifications, as well as experiences of professionals within the clinical academic pathway. Study quality will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised controlled trials, the Newcastle-Ottawa tool for non-randomised studies, and the QARI tool for qualitative studies. Detailed plans for screening, data extraction, and analysis are provided within this protocol. DISCUSSION: This systematic review is situated within a larger project evaluating gender inequalities in clinical academic careers. This review will identify and synthetize barriers, facilitators, and interventions addressing gender inequalities in clinical academia. Our findings will increase awareness of inequalities in clinical academic careers through informing clinical academics, regulators and funders of the issues involved, and potential interventions to counteract these. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/mfy7a.

Promotion Disparities in Academic Urology.

OBJECTIVE: To better understand promotion timelines across gender and race/ethnicity and how academic output impacts promotion in urology. METHODS: We examined the 2017 census. An academic subset was asked questions regarding their promotion timeline. We obtained demographic, academic output, and family responsibility data. RESULTS: Of 2926 academic urologists who identified a position of Assistant, Associate, or Full professor, 11.2% were women, 75% were White, and 94% were non-Hispanic. Men authored more papers and achieved principal investigator status more often than women. Non-Hispanics authored more papers than Hispanics. On average, women took 1.2 years longer than men to advance from Assistant to Associate Professor (7.3 years [95% CI: 6.8-7.8] vs 6.1 years, [95% CI: 5.8-6.6, P <.001]). Advancement from Associate to Full Professor was similar between women and men (6.0 years [95% CI: 5.1-6.9] vs 6.6 [95% CI: 6.1-7.1, P = .25]). Compared to women, men were more likely to experience rapid promotion (≤4 years) to Associate Professor (odds ratio 3 [95% CI: 1.8-5.1]). There was no statistical difference across race/ethnicity for promotion from Assistant to Associate, Associate to Full Professor, or rapid promotion. CONCLUSION: We identified disparities in promotion times based on gender but not race and ethnicity. The number of under-represented minority faculty in urology is low. Understanding the causes of disparities should be a priority in order to support fair promotion practices and retention of diverse faculty.