"How to article:" guidelines for serving on an expert panel.

Academics in medicine are frequently asked to serve on panels to discuss their clinical, research, education, administrative or personal expertise. While panel discussions are often the highlight of a conference or event, in the medical literature, there is very little published on how an individual can effectively prepare and present as an expert panelist. This paper offers guidelines that will enable academics to prepare, deliver, and engage in active dialogue during a panel discussion. Specific tactics include how to accept invitations to serve on a panel, conducting pre-panel conference meetings and background research, preparing concise opening statements and new insights, connecting with the audience, answering questions in a collaborative spirit, and debriefing after the panel. These guidelines will be valuable to any individual invited to serve on a panel discussion and will promote future panelists in engaging in constructive and fulfilling dialogue, with the ultimate goal of leaving the audience with a greater understanding of the topic of discourse.

Analysis of Pediatric Clinical Practice Guideline Authors by Gender, Race, and Ethnicity.

Background and Objectives: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have significantly influenced medical practice worldwide. Nevertheless, the authorship of CPGs produced by several medical societies has not been representative of the field and population they address, as women and individuals from racial and ethnic minority groups have been underrepresented as authors. We hypothesized that women and individuals from minoritized racial and ethnic groups would also be underrepresented as authors of CPGs produced by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). Methods: In this cross-sectional study, the gender, race, and ethnic composition of authors and subcommittee participants of AAP-produced CPGs published from January 2010 through May 2023 were analyzed and compared to the 2010 and 2021 U.S. population and 2010 and 2022 U.S. medical school pediatric faculty. Results: Women (39.7%, 127/320 of all positions, and 42.5%, 85/200 of named author positions) and women physicians (35.2%, 101/287 of all positions, and 36.4%, 64/176 of named author positions) were significantly underrepresented-while men and men physicians were significantly overrepresented-from their respective composition in the U.S. Census and pediatric faculty. Women and women physicians from all racial and ethnic groups and men and men physicians from minority racial and ethnic groups were significantly underrepresented-from their respective composition in the U.S. Census and pediatric faculty. No Black man was identified as an author. Conclusions: Medical societies that produce CPGs should be cognizant of these inequities and ensure appropriate authorship diversity.

Gender Differences in the Path to Medical School Deanship.

Importance: Women account for only 28% of current US medical school deans. Studying the differences between women and men in their preparation to becoming deans might help to explain this discrepancy. Objective: To identify differences in the leadership development experiences between women and men in their ascent to the medical school deanship. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this qualitative study, volunteers from the roster of the Association of American Medical Colleges Council of Deans were solicited and interviewed from June 15 to November 9, 2023. Women deans were recruited first, then men who had been appointed to their deanships at a similar time to their women counterparts were recruited. Deans were interviewed on topics related to number of applications for deanships, prior leadership roles, leadership development, personal factors, and career trajectories. Interviews were coded, and themes were extracted through conventional content analysis. Main Outcome and Measures: Career and leadership development experiences were elicited using a semistructured interview guide. Results: We interviewed 17 women and 17 men deans, representing 25.8% (34 of 132) of the total population of US medical school deans. Most deans (23 [67.6%]) practiced a medicine-based specialty or subspecialty. No statistically significant differences were found between women and men with regard to years to attain deanship (mean [SD], 2.7 [3.4] vs 3.7 [3.7] years), years as a dean (mean [SD], 5.7 [5.2] vs 6.0 [5.0] years), highest salary during career (mean [SD], $525 769 [$199 936] vs $416 923 [$195 848]), or medical school rankings (mean [SD], 315.5 [394.5] vs 480.5 [448.9]). Their reports indicated substantive gender differences in their paths to becoming a dean. Compared with men, women deans reported having to work harder to advance, while receiving less support and opportunities for leadership positions by their own institutions. Subsequently, women sought leadership development from external programs. Women deans also experienced gender bias when working with search firms. Conclusions and Relevance: This qualitative study of US medical school deans found that compared with men, women needed to be more proactive, had to participate in external leadership development programs, and had to confront biases during the search process. For rising women leaders, this lack of support had consequences, such as burnout and attrition, potentially affecting the makeup of future generations of medical school deans. Institutional initiatives centering on leadership development of women is needed to mitigate the gender biases and barriers faced by aspiring women leaders.

Why Gender-Based Bullying Is Normalized in Academic Medicine: Experiences and Perspectives of Women Physician Leaders.

Background: Bullying has been identified as a problem in the academic medicine. Bullying behaviors persist because organizational cultures have allowed them to become normalized. In academic medicine, women are more likely to be bullied than men. Our purpose was to explain why gender-based bullying persists in academic medicine and identify mitigation strategies. Methods: We interviewed senior faculty women physicians who graduated from the Hedwig van Ameringen Executive Leadership in Academic Medicine® program. We asked participants about their experience with bullying and its consequence on their careers. We also asked about the types of culture they think perpetuates bullying and their thoughts on how best to mitigate bullying. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded using Averbuch's Cycle of Academic Bullying as a framework. Results: We sampled 30 women physician leaders for interviews from a pool of 96 volunteers who had screened positive for experiencing bullying. All 30 either experienced or witnessed bullying during their careers. Bullying behaviors included public humiliation, defamation, verbal disparagement, and social isolation. Subjects suffered numerous negative effects from bullying such as stress, burnout, depression, and having to leave the job. Participants believed bullying behaviors persisted due to hierarchical organizational cultures. Barriers to reporting and mitigation were thought to originate from lack of leadership combined with ineffective policies and reporting mechanisms. Conclusions: Dysfunctional hierarchies embedded in organizational cultures within academic medicine have contributed to the normalization of bullying. Committed leadership, focused on implementing comprehensive bullying prevention policies, is needed to promote an inclusive culture in which everyone feels that they belong.

Disrupting Faculty-on-Faculty Bullying in Academic Medicine: An Innovative Workshop.

Introduction: Bullying, a severe form of mistreatment, occurs when an individual in an authority position intentionally imposes negative persistent behaviors on a target. In academic medicine, bullying is used to impede the target's professional growth. While there is abundant literature on how to disrupt other forms of mistreatment, the literature related to bullying among academic medical faculty members is scarce. Methods: We developed an interactive workshop on disrupting faculty-on-faculty bullying in academic medicine, with a focus on gender-based bullying, following Kern's model of curriculum development. The workshop consisted of three didactics on the scope of bullying in academic medicine: identifying bullying behaviors, learning strategies to mitigate bullying, and understanding what constitutes comprehensive antibullying policies. The workshop also included three small-group activities to reinforce learned concepts. Results: Eighty-seven faculty attended one of three workshops held over a 6-month period. We received 24 completed evaluations for a 28% rate of return. Most participants rated workshop activities as being well taught and of great value. Many respondents commented that after participating in the workshop, they realized they had likely experienced or witnessed bullying in their careers and that mitigating bullying required effort at multiple levels (individual, institutional, national). Discussion: This workshop fills a need in academic medicine through addressing how faculty members and institutions can help themselves and others to disrupt bullying. We will continue to disseminate this workshop at national conferences and at individual institutions. This resource will allow other educators to offer the workshop at their home institutions.

Bullying in Academic Medicine: Experiences of Women Physician Leaders.

PURPOSE: Bullying is defined as offenders abusing positions of authority and intentionally targeting individuals through persistent negative behaviors to impede education or career growth. This study sought to estimate the prevalence and nature of bullying experienced by women physician leaders in academic medicine. METHOD: In this survey-based study, 547 physician graduates of an executive women's leadership training program were invited to complete a survey that measured workplace bullying in 2021. Participants were asked whether and when they had been bullied, how it impacted their careers, and remedies for bullying. Descriptive statistics were used to profile mistreatment and bullying experienced by the respondents during their professional careers and the nature of bullying. Content analysis of open-ended comments was used to describe how bullying impacted women physicians and outline recommendations for bullying prevention and mitigation. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 64.7% (354/547). Most women (302/354 [85.3%]) had experienced mistreatment during their careers, with more than half experiencing bullying while an attending physician (198/302 [65.6%]). Many women (187/302 [61.9%]) who screened positive for mistreatment also reported that they had been bullied at work. Of these 187 respondents, 173 (92.5%) experienced bullying from men and 121 (64.7%) reporting bullying from women (effect size = 0.34, P ≤ .001), and 115 (61.5%) reported that bullies were their immediate supervisors. Qualitative findings suggested that bullying harmed individuals' career advancement, mental health, reputation, and relationships with others. Many had to change roles or leave jobs. Participants proposed that initiatives by top-level leaders, clear definitions of bullying behavior, reporting mechanisms, and upstander training for faculty and staff could mitigate bullying. CONCLUSIONS: Most women physician leaders have experienced bullying. These results highlight the need to address bullying in academic medicine so that women can reach their full career potential.

The Path Forward: Using Metrics to Promote Equitable Work Environments.

Women continue to be underrepresented in medicine, especially in senior leadership positions, and they experience challenges related to gender bias and sexual harassment. Women who are members of multiple groups that experience marginalization, including, for example, women who are American Indian, Alaskan native, indigenous, Black, or Hispanic, face a compounded challenge. In this article, we explore how institutions and professional organizations in medicine can use metrics to better understand the structural disparities that create and promote gender inequity in the work environment and how to employ these metrics to track progress in narrowing these gaps. Examples in health care (clinical medicine, scientific organizations, scientific publishing), business, and law are used to illustrate how impactful metrics can promote accountability when coupled with transparent reporting.

Is Academic Medicine Making Mid-Career Women Physicians Invisible?

In this perspective piece, we describe a multifactorial phenomenon whereby academic women physicians become invisible in the mid-career stage. Barriers, both small and large, cause a cumulative inequity effect, and women may leave academic medicine. Certainly, family and lifestyle choices play a role. And as we describe, so is a situation created where women become discouraged and disillusioned. We describe the growing evidence of subtle disparities, or micro-inequities, that cause women to be less visible and marginalized. Over time, early career women transition to mid-career with an accumulation of these micro-inequities. Women have more difficulty in building their academic portfolios and curriculum vitae-core components of academic promotion. They comprise greater than 50% of the health care workforce; yet, they are underrepresented in top leadership positions. For example, only 22% of full professors, 18% of department chairs, and 17% of medical school deans are women. Macro-inequities, which are observable and measurable, are also well documented. For example, women receive less compensation than men for the same job. We examine the contributing and causative processes and offer suggestions on how to promote equity among highly qualified mid-career women as they graduate from training and move beyond the early career stage.