Building an Equity-Centered Ecosystem: University of Utah Health as a Microcosm.

Academic medicine, and medicine in general, are less diverse than the general patient population. Family Medicine, while still lagging behind the general population, has the most diversity in leadership and in the specialty in general, and continues to lead in this effort, with 16.7% of chairs identifying as underrepresented in medicine. Historical and current systematic marginalization of Black or African American, Latina/e/o/x, Hispanic or of Spanish Origin (LHS), American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and Southeast Asian individuals has created severe underrepresentation within health sciences professions. Over the last 30 years, the percentage of faculty from these groups has increased from 7 to 9% in allopathic academic medicine, with similar increases in Osteopathic Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmacy, but all lag behind age-adjusted population means. Traditionally, diversity efforts have focused on increasing pathway programs to address this widening disparity. While pathway programs are a good start, they are only a portion of what is needed to create lasting change in the diversity of the medical profession as well as the career trajectory and success of underrepresented in medicine (URiM) health professionals toward self-actualization and positions of leadership. This article elucidates all parts of an ecosystem necessary to ensure that equity, diversity, and inclusion outcomes can improve.

Are committee experiences of minoritized family medicine faculty part of the minority tax? a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Because much of the work in academic medicine is done by committee, early career URiM faculty, are often asked to serve on multiple committees, including diversity work that may not be recognized as important. They may also be asked to serve on committees to satisfy a diversity "check box," and may be asked more often than their non-URiM peers to serve in this capacity. We sought to describe the committee experiences of early career URiM faculty, hypothesizing that they may see committee service as a minority tax. METHODS: Participants in the Leadership through Scholarship Fellowship (LTSF) were asked to share their experiences with committee service in their careers after participating in a faculty development discussion. Their responses were analyzed and reported using qualitative, open, axial, and abductive reasoning methods. RESULTS: Four themes, with eight sub-themes (in parenthesis), emerged from the content analysis of the LTSF fellows responses to the prompt: Time commitment (Timing of committee work and lack of protected time for research and scholarship), URiM Committee service (Expectation that URiM person will serve on committees and consequences for not serving), Mentoring issues (no mentoring regarding committee service, faculty involvement is lacking and the conflicting nature of committee work) and Voice (Lack of voice or acknowledgement). CONCLUSIONS: Early career URiM faculty reported an expectation of serving on committees and consequences for not serving related to their identity, but other areas of committee service they shared were not connected to their URiM identity. Because most of the experiences were not connected to the LTSF fellows' URiM identity, this group has identified areas of committee service that may affect all early career faculty. More research is necessary to determine how committee service affects URiM and non-URiM faculty in academic family medicine.