Deconstructing Racism, Hierarchy, and Power in Medical Education: Guiding Principles on Inclusive Curriculum Design.

In the context of current U.S. racial justice movements, analysis of racism in medicine within medical education is a critical task for all institutions. To educate the next generation of physicians about racism in medicine and out of concern that the curriculum required critical assessment and change, a group of students and faculty at Boston University School of Medicine (BUSM) initiated a longitudinal curricular analysis through a vertical integration group, commissioned by the Medical Education Committee, from May 2019 to June 2020. The curriculum analysis and the major outcomes and guiding principles that emerged from it are described as a path forward, toward a more inclusive curriculum. The major elements of this analysis included a comprehensive internal curricular assessment and an external assessment of peer institutions that led to the development of key curricular recommendations and overarching equity and specific racially focused equity competencies. The curricular recommendations fall into the following domains: (1) challenging the persistence of biological/genetic notions of race, (2) embedding structural practices in medical education to dismantle racism in medicine, and (3) promoting institutional climate change. Initial steps to implement these recommendations are described. The authors believe that the historic and present reality of racism in America and in medicine has impacted medical education specifically, and more broadly, the practice of medicine, trainee experience, and patient outcomes. The key findings of the BUSM analysis are transferable to other medical education institutions, and the described review process can support peer institutions as they engage in the imperative work of institutional reflection and addressing the salient ideas and practices that uphold racism in medicine.

Evaluating the Role of Self-Esteem on Differential Career Outcomes by Gender in Academic Medicine.

PURPOSE: Gender differences in faculty advancement persist in academic medicine. Understanding of what drives these differences remains limited. The relationship among self-esteem, gender, and career outcomes has not previously been explored. METHOD: The authors evaluated the association between gender and 2012-2013 career outcomes, specifically, the number of publications, academic rank, leadership positions, and retention, and whether self-esteem as measured in the 1995 National Faculty Survey mediates this relationship. They measured self-esteem using the modified Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. The authors used multivariable logistic regression analysis to understand the association among gender, self-esteem, and the outcomes of rank, leadership, and retention, and negative binomial models for number of publications. Models were adjusted for race, specialty, effort distribution, and years since first faculty appointment. The authors performed a mediation analysis to understand whether self-esteem mediates the relationship between gender and these career outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, self-esteem scores were high. Women had lower self-esteem in 1995 than their male colleagues. In adjusted models, female gender was associated with lower performance on all 4 career outcome metrics. While self-esteem scores were positively associated with all 4 outcomes, the authors' mediation analysis suggested that self-esteem did not mediate the relationship between gender and these 4 career metrics. CONCLUSIONS: Female medical faculty members lag behind men on traditional metrics of faculty achievement. While higher self-esteem is positively associated with faculty achievement, it did not mediate the relationship between gender and career advancement over the 17 years of follow-up and, thus, may not be an ideal target for programs and policies to increase gender parity in academic medicine.

Challenges in Recruiting, Retaining and Promoting Racially and Ethnically Diverse Faculty.

BACKGROUND: Despite individual and institutional awareness of the inequity in retention, promotion and leadership of racially and ethnically underrepresented minority faculty in academic medicine, the number of such faculty remains unacceptably low. The authors explored challenges to the recruitment, retention and promotion of underrepresented faculty among a sample of leaders at academic medical centers. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted from 2011 to 2012 with 44 senior faculty leaders, predominantly members of the Group on Diversity and Inclusion (GDI) and/or the Group on Women in Medical Sciences (GWIMS), at the 24 randomly selected medical schools of the National Faculty Survey of 1995. All institutions were in the continental United States and balanced across public/private status and geographic region. Interviews were audio-taped, transcribed, and organized into content areas before conducting inductive thematic analysis. Themes expressed by multiple informants were studied for patterns of association. RESULTS: The climate for underrepresented minority faculty was described as neutral to positive. Three consistent themes were identified regarding the challenges to recruitment, retention and promotion of underrepresented faculty: 1) the continued lack of a critical mass of minority faculty; 2) the need for coordinated programmatic efforts and resources necessary to address retention and promotion; and 3) the need for a senior leader champion. CONCLUSION: Despite a generally positive climate, the lack of a critical mass remains a barrier to recruitment of racially and ethnically underrepresented faculty in medicine. Programs and resources committed to retention and promotion of minority faculty and institutional leadership are critical to building a diverse faculty.

Gender Differences in Academic Medicine: Retention, Rank, and Leadership Comparisons From the National Faculty Survey.

PURPOSE: Prior studies have found that women in academic medicine do not advance or remain in their careers in parity with men. The authors examined a cohort of faculty from the 1995 National Faculty Survey to identify predictors of advancement, retention, and leadership for women faculty. METHOD: The authors followed 1,273 faculty at 24 medical schools in the continental United States for 17 years to identify predictors of advancement, retention, and leadership for women faculty. Schools were balanced for public or private status and the four Association of American Medical Colleges geographic regions. The authors used regression models to adjust for covariates: seniority, department, academic setting, and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: After adjusting for significant covariates, women were less likely than men to achieve the rank of professor (OR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.43-0.78) or to remain in academic careers (OR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.94). When number of refereed publications was added to the model, differences by gender in retention and attainment of senior rank were no longer significant. Male faculty were more likely to hold senior leadership positions after adjusting for publications (OR = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.35-0.69). CONCLUSIONS: Gender disparities in rank, retention, and leadership remain across the career trajectories of the faculty cohort in this study. Women were less likely to attain senior-level positions than men, even after adjusting for publication-related productivity. Institutions must examine the climate for women to ensure their academic capital is fully utilized and equal opportunity exists for leadership.

Race/Ethnicity and Success in Academic Medicine: Findings From a Longitudinal Multi-Institutional Study.

PURPOSE: To understand differences in productivity, advancement, retention, satisfaction, and compensation comparing underrepresented medical (URM) faculty with other faculty at multiple institutions. METHOD: A 17-year follow-up was conducted of the National Faculty Survey, a random sample from 24 U.S. medical schools, oversampled for URM faculty. The authors examined academic productivity, advancement, retention, satisfaction, and compensation, comparing white, URM, and non-URM faculty. Retention, productivity, and advancement data were obtained from public sources for nonrespondents. Covariates included gender, specialty, time distribution, and years in academia. Negative binomial regression was used for count data, logistic regression for binary outcomes, and linear regression for continuous outcomes. RESULTS: In productivity analyses, advancement, and retention, 1,270 participants were included; 604 participants responded to the compensation and satisfaction survey. Response rates were lower for African American (26%) and Hispanic faculty (39%) than white faculty (52%, P < .0001). URM faculty had lower rates of peer-reviewed publications (relative number 0.64; 95% CI: 0.51, 0.79), promotion to professor (OR = 0.53; CI: 0.30, 0.93), and retention in academic medicine (OR = 0.49; CI: 0.32, 0.75). No differences were identified in federal grant acquisition, senior leadership roles, career satisfaction, or compensation between URM and white faculty. CONCLUSIONS: URM and white faculty had similar career satisfaction, grant support, leadership, and compensation; URM faculty had fewer publications and were less likely to be promoted and retained in academic careers. Successful retention of URM faculty requires comprehensive institutional commitment to changing the academic climate and deliberative programming to support productivity and advancement.

Longitudinal Analysis of Gender Differences in Academic Productivity Among Medical Faculty Across 24 Medical Schools in the United States.

PURPOSE: To examine gender differences in academic productivity, as indicated by publications and federal grant funding acquisition, among a longitudinal cohort of medical faculty from 24 U.S. medical schools, 1995 to 2012-2013. METHOD: Data for this research were taken from the National Faculty Survey involving a survey with medical faculty recruited from medical schools in 1995, and followed up in 2012-2013. Data included surveys and publication and grant funding databases. Outcomes were number of publications, h-index, and principal investigator on a federal grant in the prior two years. Gender differences were assessed using negative binomial regression models for publication and h-index outcomes, and logistic regression for the grant funding outcome; analyses adjusted for race/ethnicity, rank, specialty area, and years since first academic appointment. RESULTS: Data were available for 1,244 of the 1,275 (98%) subjects eligible for the follow-up study. Men were significantly more likely than women to be married/partnered, have children, and hold the rank of professor (P < .0001). Adjusted regression models documented that women had a lower rate of publication (relative number = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.63, 0.81; P < .0001) and h-index (relative number = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.73, 0.90; P < .0001) relative to men, but there was no gender difference in grant funding. CONCLUSIONS: Women faculty acquired federal funding at similar rates as male faculty, yet lagged behind in terms of publications and their impact. Medical academia must consider how to help address ongoing gender disparities in publication records.

Inequities in Academic Compensation by Gender: A Follow-up to the National Faculty Survey Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Cross-sectional studies have demonstrated gender differences in salaries within academic medicine. No research has assessed longitudinal compensation patterns. This study sought to assess longitudinal patterns by gender in compensation, and to understand factors associated with these differences in a longitudinal cohort. METHOD: A 17-year longitudinal follow-up of the National Faculty Survey was conducted with a random sample of faculty from 24 U.S. medical schools. Participants employed full-time at initial and follow-up time periods completed the survey. Annual pretax compensation during academic year 2012-2013 was compared by gender. Covariates assessed included race/ethnicity; years since first academic appointment; retention in academic career; academic rank; departmental affiliation; percent effort distribution across clinical, teaching, administrative, and research duties; marital and parental status; and any leave or part-time status in the years between surveys. RESULTS: In unadjusted analyses, women earned a mean of $20,520 less than men (P = .03); women made 90 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts. This difference was reduced to $16,982 (P = .04) after adjusting for covariates. The mean difference of $15,159 was no longer significant (P = .06) when adjusting covariates and for those who had ever taken a leave or worked part-time. CONCLUSIONS: The continued gender gap in compensation cannot be accounted for by metrics used to calculate salary. Institutional actions to address these disparities include both initial appointment and annual salary equity reviews, training of senior faculty and administrators to understand implicit bias, and training of women faculty in negotiating skills.