Intersectional Analysis of U.S. Medical Faculty Diversity over Four Decades.

The 2020 U.S. Census data show a rapidly diversifying U.S. population. We sought to evaluate whether clinical faculty and leadership representation at academic medical schools reflects the diversifying population over time. Using data from the Association of American Medical Colleges for the period of 1977 through 2019, we found notable progress in female representation among clinical faculty, with smaller gains among department chairs and medical school deans. Racial and ethnic groups that are underrepresented in medicine are designated as such because their presence within the medical profession is disproportionate to the U.S. Census data. Even with accounting for this underrepresentation, clinical faculty and leadership positions show even starker disparities. Thoughtful policy implementation could help address this persistent underrepresentation among medical school faculty and leadership positions.

COVID-19 threatens faculty diversity: postdoctoral scholars call for action.

Despite substantial investment and effort by federal agencies and institutions to improve the diversity of the professoriate, progress is excruciatingly slow. One program that aims to enhance faculty diversity is the Institutional Research and Academic Career Development Award (IRACDA) funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of General Medical Sciences. IRACDA supports the training of a diverse cohort of postdoctoral scholars who will seek academic research and teaching careers. The San Diego IRACDA program has trained 109 postdoctoral scholars since its inception in 2003; 59% are women and 63% are underrepresented (UR) Black/African-American, Latinx/Mexican-American, and Indigenous scientists. Sixty-four percent obtained tenure-track faculty positions, including a substantial 32% at research-intensive institutions. However, the COVID-19 pandemic crisis threatens to upend IRACDA efforts to improve faculty diversity, and academia is at risk of losing a generation of diverse, talented scholars. Here, a group of San Diego IRACDA postdoctoral scholars reflects on these issues and discusses recommendations to enhance the retention of UR scientists to avoid a "lost generation" of promising UR faculty scholars.

Development of a Novel Mentorship Platform to Foster Relational Mentoring, Empowered Vulnerability, and Professional Identity Formation in Undergraduate Medical Education.

PROBLEM: Mentorship is valuable to medical students undergoing professional identity formation. Many institutions lack infrastructure to facilitate the personalized mentoring that supports students' integration of new professional identities with their personal identities and values. APPROACH: The authors developed a novel mentorship platform called Weave via a multistep, iterative design process, incorporating in-person and survey-based student and faculty feedback. Features of Weave include clear communication of mentorship offerings and expectations, plus opportunities to engage mentors based on professional and personal (identity-based) attributes. Faculty at Harvard Medical School who created a mentor profile within the first 3 months of launch and students who visited the website within the same period were invited to complete usability surveys in February 2019; students were invited to complete impact surveys in August 2020. OUTCOMES: Fifty-two of 132 invited faculty members (39.4%) and 80 of 185 students (43.2%) completed the usability surveys. Most of these faculty (86.5%) and students (73.8%) reported navigating the website was easy/very easy; 36 faculty (69.2%) created a mentor profile within 10 minutes. Key innovations highlighted by faculty and students were the listing of personal attributes and identities of diverse faculty; centralized, increased access to faculty mentors; ease of use; and provision of clear expectations. Nearly all students who completed the impact surveys agreed that Weave allowed them to connect with a faculty mentor whom they would not have found through other sources and to learn about the dimensions of diverse faculty. NEXT STEPS: Weave is a customizable online mentorship platform that fosters empowered vulnerability and increases dialogue between medical students and faculty based on professional and personal interests and identities. Weave may be expanded to other mentoring contexts and adapted for implementation at other institutions to help cultivate an institutional culture that values mentoring and to strengthen broader diversity and inclusion efforts.

Academic Medicine Faculty Perceptions of Work-Life Balance Before and Since the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: How the COVID-19 pandemic has affected academic medicine faculty's work-life balance is unknown. Objective: To assess the association of perceived work-life conflict with academic medicine faculty intention to leave, reducing employment to part time, or declining leadership opportunities before and since the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Settings, and Participants: An anonymous online survey of medical, graduate, and health professions school faculty was conducted at a single large, urban academic medical center between September 1 and September 25, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-assessed intention to leave, reducing employment to part time, or turning down leadership opportunities because of work-life conflict before and since the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Of the 1186 of 3088 (38%) of faculty members who answered the survey, 649 (55%) were women and 682 (58%) were White individuals. Respondents were representative of the overall faculty demographic characteristics except for an overrepresentation of female faculty respondents and underrepresentation of Asian faculty respondents compared with all faculty (female faculty: 649 [55%] vs 1368 [44%]; Asian faculty: 259 [22%] vs 963 [31%]). After the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, faculty were more likely to consider leaving or reducing employment to part time compared with before the pandemic (leaving: 225 [23%] vs 133 [14%]; P < .001; reduce hours: 281 [29%] vs 206 [22%]; P < .001). Women were more likely than men to reduce employment to part time before the COVID-19 pandemic (153 [28%] vs 44 [12%]; P < .001) and to consider both leaving or reducing employment to part time since the COVID-19 pandemic (leaving: 154 [28%] vs 56 [15%]; P < .001; reduce employment: 215 [40%] vs 49 [13%]; P < .001). Faculty with children were more likely to consider leaving and reducing employment since the COVID-19 pandemic compared with before the pandemic (leaving: 159 [29%] vs 93 [17%]; P < .001; reduce employment: 213 [40%] vs 130 [24%]; P < .001). Women with children compared with women without children were also more likely to consider leaving since the COVID-19 pandemic than before (113 [35%] vs 39 [17%]; P < .001). Working parent faculty and women were more likely to decline leadership opportunities both before (faculty with children vs without children: 297 [32%] vs 84 [9%]; P < .001; women vs men: 206 [29%] vs 47 [13%]; P < .001) and since the COVID-19 pandemic (faculty with children vs faculty without children: 316 [34%] vs 93 [10 %]; P < .001; women vs men: 148 [28%] vs 51 [14%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study, the perceived stressors associated with work-life integration were higher in women than men, were highest in women with children, and have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The association of both gender and parenting with increased perceived work-life stress may disproportionately decrease the long-term retention and promotion of junior and midcareer women faculty.

Blurring the Boundaries: Reflections From Early Career Faculty During the COVID-19 Era.

The last three issues of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (IDD) have featured perspectives from a diverse set of contributors on how the field of intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) is being impacted by COVID-19. As four newly appointed faculty members with diverse backgrounds, the editor of IDD invited us to share our experiences with beginning academic careers during this unique time. In making this request, he pointed out that approximately half the members of the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) are those who have some type of affiliation with an institution of higher education. While the perspectives outlined in this article do not represent those of all early career faculty, we hope our stories resonate with IDD readers who may be facing similar circumstances. This article includes a series of brief essays addressing how the pandemic has affected our academic job searches, research, teaching, and service. Although penned by different authors, each section encompasses our collective experiences, concerns, and hopes for the broader IDD community. We close with guiding questions that might support more socially responsive and integrated approaches to traditional academic roles as faculty continue to navigate the repercussions of COVID-19.

Academic Productivity Differences by Gender and Child Age in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine Faculty During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, most faculty in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) began working from home, including many who were simultaneously caring for children. The objective was to assess associations of gender and parental status with self-reported academic productivity before (i.e., mid-January to mid-March 2020) and during the pandemic (i.e., mid-March to mid-May 2020). Materials and Methods: STEMM faculty in the United States (N = 284, 67.6% women, 57.0% with children younger than the age of 18 years living at home) completed a survey about the number of hours worked and the frequency of academic productivity activities. Results: There was no significant difference in the hours worked per week by gender (men, M [standard deviation, SD] = 45.8 [16.7], women = 43.1 [16.3]). Faculty with 0-5-year-old children reported significantly fewer work hours (33.7 [13.9]) compared to all other groups (No children = 49.2 [14.9], 6-11 years old = 48.3 [13.9], and 12-17 years old = 49.5 [13.9], p < 0.0001). Women's self-reported first/corresponding author's and coauthor's article submissions decreased significantly between the two time periods; men's productivity metrics did not change. Faculty with 0-5-year-old children completed significantly fewer peer review assignments, attended fewer funding panel meetings, and submitted fewer first authors' articles during the pandemic compared to the previous period. Those with children aged 6 years or older at home or without children at home reported significant increases or stable productivity. Conclusions: Overall, significant disparities were observed in academic productivity by gender and child age during the pandemic and if confirmed by further research, should be considered by academic institutions and funding agencies when making decisions regarding funding and hiring as well as promotion and tenure.