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.

Faculty knowledge, actions, and perceptions of sponsorship: an institutional survey study.

BACKGROUND: Women and underrepresented in medicine and the health sciences (URiM) faculty face inequities in advancement. Career sponsorship may be a remedy. Few studies have described sponsorship in academic medicine and none across an institution. OBJECTIVE: To examine faculty awareness, experiences, and perceptions of sponsorship at a large academic health center. DESIGN: Anonymous online survey. PARTICIPANTS: Faculty with a ≥50% appointment. MAIN MEASURES: The survey contained 31 Likert, multiple-choice, yes/no, and open-ended questions about familiarity with the concept of sponsorship; experience of having or being a sponsor; receipt of specific sponsorship activities; sponsorship impact and satisfaction; mentorship and sponsorship co-occurrence; and perception of inequities. Open-ended questions were analyzed using content analysis. KEY RESULTS: Thirty-one percent of the surveyed faculty (903/2900) responded of whom 53% (477/903) were women and 10% (95/903) were URiM. Familiarity with sponsorship was higher among assistant (91%, 269/894) and associate (182/894; 64%) professors versus full professors (38%, 329/894); women (67%, 319/488) versus men (62%, 169/488); and URiM (77%, 66/517) versus non-URiM faculty (55%, 451/517). A majority had a personal sponsor (528/691; 76%) during their career and were satisfied with their sponsorship (64%, 532/828). However, when responses from faculty of different professorial ranks were stratified by gender and URiM identity, we observed possible cohort effects. Furthermore, 55% (398/718) of respondents perceived that women received less sponsorship than men and 46% (312/672) that URiM faculty received less than their peers. We identified seven qualitative themes: sponsorship importance, growing awareness and change, institutional biases and deficiencies, groups getting less sponsorship, people with sponsorship power, conflation with mentorship, and potential for negative impact. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of respondents at a large academic health center reported sponsorship familiarity, receipt, and satisfaction. Yet many perceived persistent institutional biases and the need for systematic change to improve sponsorship transparency, equity, and impact.

Transitioning from intravenous to subcutaneous insulin in the medical intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of studies on transitions from IV insulin infusion (IVII) to subcutaneous (SC) insulin in the medical ICU (MICU). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patients admitted to the Cleveland Clinic MICU from June 2013 to January 2014 who received IVII. We compared blood glucose (BG) control between 3 cohorts based on timing of basal insulin dose: (1) NB (no basal), (2) IB (incorrect basal), (3) CB (correct basal) at 5 time points post-IVII discontinuation (1, 4, 8, 12, and 24h). Insulin doses used for transitioning were compared with 80% of estimated 24h IVII total. Analysis was done using chi-square, ANOVA and t-tests. RESULTS: There were 269 patients (NB 166, IB 45, CB 58), 55% male with a mean age 58±16years. 103 patients (38%) had a transition attempted (IB 21%, CB 17%). The NB cohort had better BG than the IB cohort at all time points (p<0.001) but also lower HbA1c, prior DM diagnosis and home insulin use (p<0.001). IB and CB did not have significantly different BG with mean BG>180mg/dL at 4/5 time intervals. However, the dose of basal insulin used was less than 80% of estimated 24h IVII total (IB 21.4 vs 49.6U, CB 25vs 57.1U). Despite this, 15% of patients in the IB cohort and 24% of patients in the CB had hypoglycemic events. CONCLUSION: The low rates of IV to SC insulin transitions raises the question of challenges to transitions.

Type 2 diabetes and osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies have reported an association between type 2 diabetes and osteoarthritis (OA) development and progression. However no systematic review of the literature exists assessing whether this association is consistently true. We aimed to systematically review the association between type 2 diabetes and the presence, development, and progression of OA. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, SCOPUS, EMBASE, the Web of Science, and Grey Literature (through August 2014) for prospective cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control studies with confidence intervals (CI) that reported an association between type 2 diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and the development or presence of OA of any joint. RESULTS: Ten studies and fourteen ratios were included in the analysis. The pooled population size in our meta-regression was 16,742 patients. Type 2 diabetes was significantly associated with the development or presence of OA (OR; 1·21, 95% CI: 1·02-1·41). In the subset of 7 studies that did control for weight or BMI there was an increased odds of OA associated with type 2 diabetes was (OR: 1·25, 95% CI: 1·05-1·46) from a smaller pool of patients (n=7156). CONCLUSIONS: Type 2 diabetes is associated with the development and presence of radiographic and symptomatic OA even when controlling for body mass index and weight.