Group peer mentoring is effective for different demographic groups of biomedical research faculty: A controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Improved mentoring of midcareer researchers in medical schools has been identified as an important potential avenue for addressing low vitality and high burnout rates in faculty, and the scarcity of both underrepresented minority (URM) faculty and women in biomedical research. To address the need for widescale effective mentoring, we sought to determine whether a group peer mentoring intervention (C-Change Mentoring and Leadership Institute) for early midcareer research faculty was effective for different demographic groups in a controlled trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-five diverse early midcareer faculty and 70 propensity-matched (PM) control subjects matched to intervention subjects on a) study inclusion criteria; b) gender, race, and ethnicity, degree, rank, years of experience, publications, grants; and c) pretest survey outcome variables, participated in the intervention. The C-Change Participant Survey assessed vitality, self-efficacy in career advancement, research success, mentoring others, valuing diversity, cognitive empathy, and anti-sexism/anti-racism skills at pretest and intervention completion. Analysis using multiple regression models included outcome pretest values and indicator variables for intervention, gender, URM status, and MD vs. PhD. Hypotheses regarding differential effectiveness of the intervention by demographic group were tested by including cross-product terms between the demographic indicator variables and the intervention indicator. Missing data were addressed using chained equations to create 100 data sets. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The intervention participants had significantly higher (favorable) scores than PM controls for: self-assessed change in vitality; self-efficacy for career advancement, research, and mentoring others; cognitive empathy; and anti-sexism/racism skills. The benefits of the intervention were nearly identical across: gender, URM vs non-URM faculty, and degree MD/PhD, except vitality significantly increased for non-URM subjects, and not for URM faculty. Self-assessed change in vitality increased for URM and non-URM. CONCLUSION: The intervention worked successfully for enhancing vitality, self-efficacy and cross-cultural engagement across different demographic groups of biomedical research faculty.

Randomized controlled trial of a group peer mentoring model for U.S. academic medicine research faculty.

Introduction: Midcareer is a critical transition point for biomedical research faculty and a common dropout point from an NIH-funded career. We report a study to assess the efficacy of a group peer mentoring program for diverse biomedical researchers in academic medicine, seeking to improve vitality, career advancement, and cross-cultural competence. Methods: We conducted a stratified randomized controlled trial with a waitlist control group involving 40 purposefully diverse early midcareer research faculty from 16 states who had a first-time NIH R01 (or equivalent) award, a K training grant, or a similar major grant. The yearlong intervention (2 to 3 days quarterly) consisted of facilitated, structured, group peer mentoring. Main study aims were to enhance faculty vitality, self-efficacy in achieving research success, career advancement, mentoring others, and cultural awareness and appreciation of diversity in the workplace. Results: Compared to the control group, the intervention group's increased vitality did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.20), but perceived change in vitality was 1.47 standard deviations higher (D = 1.47, P = 0.03). Self-efficacy for career advancement was higher in the intervention group (D = 0.41, P = 0.05) as was self-efficacy for research (D = 0.57, P = 0.02). The intervention group also valued diversity higher (D = 0.46, P = 0.02), had higher cognitive empathy (D = 0.85, P = 0.03), higher anti-sexism/racism skills (D = 0.71, P = 0.01), and higher self-efficacy in mentoring others (D = 1.14, P = 0.007). Conclusions: The mentoring intervention resulted in meaningful change in important dimensions and skills among a national sample of diverse early midcareer biomedical faculty. This mentoring program holds promise for addressing the urgencies of sustaining faculty vitality and cross-cultural competence.

Are researchers in academic medicine flourishing? A survey of midcareer Ph.D. and physician investigators.

Introduction: Midcareer research faculty are a vital part of the advancement of science in U.S. medical schools, but there are troubling trends in recruitment, retention, and burnout rates. Methods: The primary sampling frame for this online survey was recipients of a single R01 or equivalent and/or K-award from 2013 to 2019. Inclusion criteria were 3-14 years at a U.S. medical school and rank of associate professor or two or more years as assistant professor. Forty physician investigators and Ph.D. scientists volunteered for a faculty development program, and 106 were propensity-matched controls. Survey items covered self-efficacy in career, research, work-life; vitality/burnout; relationships, inclusion, trust; diversity; and intention to leave academic medicine. Results: The majority (52%) reported receiving poor mentoring; 40% experienced high burnout and 41% low vitality, which, in turn, predicted leaving intention (P < 0.0005). Women were more likely to report high burnout (P = 0.01) and low self-efficacy managing work and personal life (P = 0.01) and to be seriously considering leaving academic medicine than men (P = 0.003). Mentoring quality (P < 0.0005) and poor relationships, inclusion, and trust (P < 0.0005) predicted leaving intention. Non-underrepresented men were very likely to report low identity self-awareness (65%) and valuing differences (24%) versus underrepresented men (25% and 0%; P < 0.0005). Ph.D.s had lower career advancement self-efficacy than M.D.s (P < .0005). Conclusions: Midcareer Ph.D. and physician investigators faced significant career challenges. Experiences diverged by underrepresentation, gender, and degree. Poor quality mentoring was an issue for most. Effective mentoring could address the concerns of this vital component of the biomedical workforce.

Towards a common lexicon for equity, diversity, and inclusion work in academic medicine.

Differential rewarding of work and experience has been a longtime feature of academic medicine, resulting in a series of academic disparities. These disparities have been collectively called a cultural or minority "tax," and, when considered beyond academic medicine, exist across all departments, colleges, and schools of institutions of higher learning-from health sciences to disciplines located on university campuses outside of medicine and health. A shared language can provide opportunities for those who champion this work to pool resources for larger impacts across the institution. This article aims to catalog the terms used across academic medicine disciplines to establish a common language describing the inequities experienced by Black, Latinx, American Indian/Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, Women, and other underrepresented people as well as queer, disabled, and other historically marginalized or excluded groups. These ideas are specific to academic medicine in the United States, although many can be used in academic medicine in other countries. The terms were selected by a team of experts in equity, diversity, and inclusion, (EDI) who are considered national thought leaders in EDI and collectively have over 100 years of scholarship and experience in this area.

Gender equity in academic rheumatology, current status and potential for improvement: a cross-sectional study to inform an EULAR task force.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence on the current status of gender equity in academic rheumatology in Europe and potential for its improvement is limited. The EULAR convened a task force to obtain empirical evidence on the potential unmet need for support of female rheumatologists, health professionals and non-clinical scientists in academic rheumatology. METHODS: This cross-sectional study comprised three web-based surveys conducted in 2020 among: (1) EULAR scientific member society leaders, (2) EULAR and Emerging EULAR Network (EMEUNET) members and (3) EULAR Council members. Statistics were descriptive with significance testing for male/female responses assessed by χ2 test and t-test. RESULTS: Data from EULAR scientific member societies in 13 countries indicated that there were disproportionately fewer women in academic rheumatology than in clinical rheumatology, and they tended to be under-represented in senior academic roles. From 324 responses of EULAR and EMEUNET members (24 countries), we detected no gender differences in leadership aspirations, self-efficacy in career advancement and work-life integration as well as the share of time spent on research, but there were gender differences in working hours and the levels of perceived gender discrimination and sexual harassment. There were gender differences in the ranking of 7 of 26 factors impacting career advancement and of 8 of 24 potential interventions to aid career advancement. CONCLUSIONS: There are gender differences in career advancement in academic rheumatology. The study informs a EULAR task force developing a framework of potential interventions to accelerate gender-equitable career advancement in academic rheumatology.

Midcareer Medical School Research Faculty Perspectives on Vitality and Professionalism During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: As medical faculty have central roles during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to study the pandemic's association with the vitality and careers of medical school faculty. Objective: To examine how the COVID-19 pandemic affected midcareer research faculty in academic medicine. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study included medical school faculty who participated in the C-Change Mentoring and Leadership Institute. All US medical school faculty recipients of recent National Institutes of Health (NIH) RO1, RO1-equivalent, and K awards were invited to apply to the institute. The 99 applicants who met inclusion criteria were stratified by degree (MD or MD/PhD vs PhD), gender, and race/ethnicity. Enrollment was offered to applicants randomly selected for 40 spots, demographically balanced by sex, underrepresented in medicine minority (URMM) status, and degree. In April 2020, an inquiry was emailed to faculty enrolled in the institute requesting responses to questions about meaning in work, career choice, and values. A qualitative analysis of narrative data responses, using grounded theory, was undertaken to determine key themes. This study is part of a NIH-funded randomized trial to test the efficacy of a group peer mentoring course for midcareer faculty and study the course's mechanisms of action. Main Outcomes and Measures: Key themes in data. Results: Of 40 enrolled participants, 39 responded to the inquiry, for a response rate of 97%. The analytic sample included 39 faculty members; 19 (47%) were women, 20 (53%) identified as URMM, and 20 (53%) had an MD or MD with PhD vs 19 (47%) with PhD degrees. Key themes in the data that emerged describing faculty lived experience of the pandemic included increased meaningfulness of work; professionalism and moral responsibility; enhanced relationships with colleagues; reassertion of career choice; disrupted research; impact on clinical work; attention to health disparities, social justice and advocacy; increased family responsibilities; psychological stress; and focus on leadership. Conclusions and Relevance: During the pandemic, diverse PhD and physician investigators reported increased meaningfulness in work and professionalism and enhanced relationships, all intrinsic motivators associated with vitality. Working during the pandemic appears to have produced intrinsic rewards positively associated with vitality, in addition to adverse mental health effects. These findings have implications for combatting burnout and retaining investigators in the future.

Us, Too. Sexual Harassment Within Academic Medicine in the United States.

PURPOSE: We report on the extent of sexual harassment among residents and examine its relationship to specialty and program year and effects. METHODS: Using the C-Change Resident Survey, we surveyed residents in 34 internal medicine, pediatrics, and general surgery programs in 14 academic medical centers (AMCs). A total of 1708 residents completed the survey (70% response-rate); 51% (n = 879) were women. Respondents reported unwanted sexual comments, attention, or advances by a superior or colleagues within the last 2 years. Measures of vitality and ethical or moral distress were included in the surveys. RESULTS: Rates of sexual harassment reported by women differed across the 34 programs, with an interquartile range of 0%-11%. Residents in pediatrics had the lowest frequencies of sexual harassment (mean 2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0%, 4%). Residents in internal medicine had higher rates of sexual harassment (mean 7%, 95% CI 1%, 25%). Residents in surgery had the highest rates (mean 12%, 95% CI 2%, 33%). Sexual harassment was associated with lower levels of vitality and higher ethical or moral distress (both, P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Sexual harassment is more common for women residents in Internal Medicine and Surgery programs. The adverse effects of sexual harassment on female residents detracts from an institution's professional workforce.

Resident Vitality in 34 Programs at 14 Academic Health Systems: Insights for Educating Physicians and Surgeons for the Future.

OBJECTIVE: To clarify our understanding of how the culture of residency training influences the well-being of residents, this study reports on the vitality of residents at 34 programs across the United States and identifies characteristics of the programs, institutions and residents that are associated with high resident vitality. DESIGN: In 2014 to 2015, residents nationally were surveyed using the validated C - Change Resident Survey. The survey assessed residents' vitality and 12 other dimensions that characterize residents' perspectives of the culture of the residency training programs: Self-efficacy, Institutional/program support, Relationships/inclusion/trust, Values alignment, Ethical/moral distress, Respect, Leadership aspirations, Mentoring, Work-life integration, Gender equity, Racial/ethnic minority equity, and self-assessed Competencies. Multilevel models were used to assess vitality within and across programs, and examine predictors including resident, program, and institution characteristics. PARTICIPANTS: Two thousand four hundred and fifty-two residents from 11 General Surgery, 12 Internal Medicine, and 11 Pediatrics programs at 14 U.S. academic health systems. RESULTS: One thousand seven hundred and eight residents responded (70% response rate). The mean Vitality score was 3.6 (range 1-5, where values of 4-5 represent high Vitality). There was wide variation among the 34 programs in the percent of residents who had high Vitality scores, ranging from 17% to 71%. However, the average Vitality scores within specialty (Surgery, Medicine, and Pediatrics) were not significantly different. The strongest predictors of Vitality were Work-life integration, Relationships/inclusion/trust, Institutional/program support, Res?>pect, Values alignment, and Ethical/moral distress, which together accounted for 50% of vitality variance. Individual demographics accounted for just 3% of variance. CONCLUSIONS: Vitality is an essential component of resident well-being, and within each specialty there are programs that have excelled in promoting a culture of high vitality. Our findings suggest that we should test interventions to enhance resident vitality by focusing greater attention on providing institutional support, aligning individual and institutional values, integrating work and personal life, and facilitating relationships, inclusiveness and trust.

Assessing the Culture of Residency Using the C - Change Resident Survey: Validity Evidence in 34 U.S. Residency Programs.

BACKGROUND: A practical instrument is needed to reliably measure the clinical learning environment and professionalism for residents. OBJECTIVE: To develop and present evidence of validity of an instrument to assess the culture of residency programs and the clinical learning environment. DESIGN: During 2014-2015, we surveyed residents using the C - Change Resident Survey to assess residents' perceptions of the culture in their programs. PARTICIPANTS: Residents in all years of training in 34 programs in internal medicine, pediatrics, and general surgery in 14 geographically diverse public and private academic health systems. MAIN MEASURES: The C - Change Resident Survey assessed residents' perceptions of 13 dimensions of the culture: Vitality, Self-Efficacy, Institutional Support, Relationships/Inclusion, Values Alignment, Ethical/Moral Distress, Respect, Mentoring, Work-Life Integration, Gender Equity, Racial/Ethnic Minority Equity, and self-assessed Competencies. We measured the internal reliability of each of the 13 dimensions and evaluated response process, content validity, and construct-related evidence validity by assessing relationships predicted by our conceptual model and prior research. We also assessed whether the measurements were sensitive to differences in specialty and across institutions. KEY RESULTS: A total of 1708 residents completed the survey [internal medicine: n = 956, pediatrics: n = 411, general surgery: n = 311 (51% women; 16% underrepresented in medicine minority)], with a response rate of 70% (range across programs, 51-87%). Internal consistency of each dimension was high (Cronbach α: 0.73-0.90). The instrument was able to detect significant differences in the learning environment across programs and sites. Evidence of validity was supported by a good response process and the demonstration of several relationships predicted by our conceptual model. CONCLUSIONS: The C - Change Resident Survey assesses the clinical learning environment for residents, and we encourage further study of validity in different contexts. Results could be used to facilitate and monitor improvements in the clinical learning environment and resident well-being.

Assessing the Learning Environment for Medical Students: An Evaluation of a Novel Survey Instrument in Four Medical Schools.

OBJECTIVE: A practical, reliable, and valid instrument is needed to measure the impact of the learning environment on medical students' well-being and educational experience and to meet medical school accreditation requirements. METHODS: From 2012 to 2015, medical students were surveyed at the end of their first, second, and third year of studies at four medical schools. The survey assessed students' perceptions of the following nine dimensions of the school culture: vitality, self-efficacy, institutional support, relationships/inclusion, values alignment, ethical/moral distress, work-life integration, gender equity, and ethnic minority equity. The internal reliability of each of the nine dimensions was measured. Construct validity was evaluated by assessing relationships predicted by our conceptual model and prior research. Assessment was made of whether the measurements were sensitive to differences over time and across institutions. RESULTS: Six hundred and eighty-six students completed the survey (49 % women; 9 % underrepresented minorities), with a response rate of 89 % (range over the student cohorts 72-100 %). Internal consistency of each dimension was high (Cronbach's α 0.71-0.86). The instrument was able to detect significant differences in the learning environment across institutions and over time. Construct validity was supported by demonstrating several relationships predicted by our conceptual model. CONCLUSIONS: The C-Change Medical Student Survey is a practical, reliable, and valid instrument for assessing the learning environment of medical students. Because it is sensitive to changes over time and differences across institution, results could potentially be used to facilitate and monitor improvements in the learning environment of medical students.

A global call for action to include gender in research impact assessment.

Global investment in biomedical research has grown significantly over the last decades, reaching approximately a quarter of a trillion US dollars in 2010. However, not all of this investment is distributed evenly by gender. It follows, arguably, that scarce research resources may not be optimally invested (by either not supporting the best science or by failing to investigate topics that benefit women and men equitably). Women across the world tend to be significantly underrepresented in research both as researchers and research participants, receive less research funding, and appear less frequently than men as authors on research publications. There is also some evidence that women are relatively disadvantaged as the beneficiaries of research, in terms of its health, societal and economic impacts. Historical gender biases may have created a path dependency that means that the research system and the impacts of research are biased towards male researchers and male beneficiaries, making it inherently difficult (though not impossible) to eliminate gender bias. In this commentary, we - a group of scholars and practitioners from Africa, America, Asia and Europe - argue that gender-sensitive research impact assessment could become a force for good in moving science policy and practice towards gender equity. Research impact assessment is the multidisciplinary field of scientific inquiry that examines the research process to maximise scientific, societal and economic returns on investment in research. It encompasses many theoretical and methodological approaches that can be used to investigate gender bias and recommend actions for change to maximise research impact. We offer a set of recommendations to research funders, research institutions and research evaluators who conduct impact assessment on how to include and strengthen analysis of gender equity in research impact assessment and issue a global call for action.

Why do women choose or reject careers in academic medicine? A narrative review of empirical evidence.

Women are under-represented in academic medicine. We reviewed the empirical evidence focusing on the reasons for women's choice or rejection of careers in academic medicine. Using a systematic search, we identified 52 studies published between 1985, and 2015. More than half had methodological limitations and most were from North America. Eight main themes were explored in these studies. There was consistent evidence for four of these themes: women are interested in teaching more than in research; participation in research can encourage women into academic medicine; women lack adequate mentors and role models; and women experience gender discrimination and bias. The evidence was conflicting on four themes: women are less interested in research than men; women lose commitment to research as their education and training progress; women are deterred from academic careers by financial considerations; and women are deterred by concerns about work-life balance. Inconsistency of findings across studies suggests significant opportunities to overcome barriers by providing a more enabling environment. We identified substantial gaps in the scientific literature that could form the focus of future research, including shifting the focus from individuals' career choices to the societal and organisational contexts and cultures within which those choices are made; extending the evidence base to include a wider range of countries and settings; and testing the efficacy of interventions.

Markers of achievement for assessing and monitoring gender equity in translational research organisations: a rationale and study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Translational research organisations (TROs) are a core component of the UK's expanding research base. Equity of career opportunity is key to ensuring a diverse and internationally competitive workforce. The UK now requires TROs to demonstrate how they are supporting gender equity. Yet, the evidence base for documenting such efforts is sparse. This study is designed to inform the acceleration of women's advancement and leadership in two of the UK's leading TROs--the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centres (BRCs) in Oxford and London--through the development, application and dissemination of a conceptual framework and measurement tool. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cross-sectional retrospective evaluation. A conceptual framework with markers of achievement and corresponding candidate metrics has been specifically designed for this study based on an adapted balanced scorecard approach. It will be refined with an online stakeholder consultation and semistructured interviews to test the face validity and explore practices and mechanisms that influence gender equity in the given settings. Data will be collected via the relevant administrative databases. A comparison of two funding periods (2007-2012 and 2012-2017) will be carried out. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Oxford Clinical Trials and Research Governance Team and the Research and Development Governance Team of Guy's and St Thomas' National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust reviewed the study and deemed it exempt from full ethics review. The results of the study will be used to inform prospective planning and monitoring within the participating NIHR BRCs with a view to accelerating women's advancement and leadership. Both the results of the study and its methodology will be further disseminated to academics and practitioners through the networks of collaborating TROs, relevant conferences and articles in peer-reviewed journals.

A Novel Measure of "Good" Mentoring: Testing Its Reliability and Validity in Four Academic Health Centers.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the well-recognized benefits of mentoring in academic medicine, there is a lack of clarity regarding what constitutes effective mentoring. We developed a tool to assess mentoring activities experienced by faculty and evaluated evidence for its validity. METHODS: The National Initiative on Gender, Culture, and Leadership in Medicine-"C-Change"-previously developed the C-Change Faculty Survey to assess the culture of academic medicine. After intensive review, we added six items representing six components of mentoring to the survey-receiving help with career and personal goals, learning skills, sponsorship, and resources. We tested the items in four academic health centers during 2013 to 2014. We estimated reliability of the new items and tested the correlation of the new items with a mentoring composite variable representing faculty mentoring experiences as positive, neutral, or inadequate and with other C-Change dimensions of culture. RESULTS: Among the 1520 responding faculty (response rate 61-63%), there was a positive association between each of the six mentoring activities and satisfaction with both the amount and quality of mentoring received. There was no difference by sex. Cronbach α coefficients ranged from 0.89 to 0.95 across subgroups of faculty (by sex, race, and principal roles). The mentoring responses were associated most closely with dimensions of Institutional Support (r = 0.58, P < .001), Institutional Change Efforts for Faculty Support (r = 0.52, P < .001), Values Alignment (r = 0.58, P < .001), Self-efficacy (r = 0.43; P < .001), and Relationships/Inclusion/Trust (r = 0.41; P < .001). DISCUSSION: Data demonstrated that the Mentoring scale is a valid instrument to assess mentoring. Survey results could facilitate mentoring program development and evaluation.

Mentoring Faculty: A US National Survey of Its Adequacy and Linkage to Culture in Academic Health Centers.

INTRODUCTION: The aims of this study were to (1) describe the quantity and quality of mentoring faculty in US academic health centers (AHCs), (2) measure associations between mentoring and 12 dimensions that reflect the culture of AHCs, and (3) assess whether mentoring predicts seriously contemplating leaving one's institution. METHODS: During 2007-2009, our National Initiative on Gender, Culture and Leadership in Medicine (C - Change) conducted a cross-sectional study of faculty from 26 representative AHCs in the United States using the 74-item C - Change Faculty Survey to assess relationships of faculty characteristics and various aspects of the institutional culture (52% response rate). Among the 2178 eligible respondents (assistant, associate, and full professors), we classified their mentoring experience as either inadequate, neutral, or positive. RESULTS: In this national sample, 43% of the 2178 respondents had inadequate mentoring; only 30% had a positive assessment of mentoring. There was no statistical difference by sex, minority status, or rank. Inadequate mentoring was most strongly associated with less institutional support, lower self-efficacy in career advancement, and lower scores on the trust/relationship/inclusion scale. The percent of faculty who had seriously considered leaving their institution was highest among those who had inadequate mentoring (58%), compared to those who were neutral (28%) or had positive mentoring (14%) (all paired comparisons, p < .001). DISCUSSION: In a national survey of faculty of US AHCs, mentoring was frequently inadequate and this was associated with faculty contemplating leaving their institutions. Positive mentoring, although less prevalent, was associated with many other positive dimensions of AHCs.

Group Peer Mentoring: An Answer to the Faculty Mentoring Problem? A Successful Program at a Large Academic Department of Medicine.

INTRODUCTION: To address a dearth of mentoring and to avoid the pitfalls of dyadic mentoring, the authors implemented and evaluated a novel collaborative group peer mentoring program in a large academic department of medicine. METHODS: The mentoring program aimed to facilitate faculty in their career planning, and targeted either early-career or midcareer faculty in 5 cohorts over 4 years, from 2010 to 2014. Each cohort of 9-12 faculty participated in a yearlong program with foundations in adult learning, relationship formation, mindfulness, and culture change. Participants convened for an entire day, once a month. Sessions incorporated facilitated stepwise and values-based career planning, skill development, and reflective practice. Early-career faculty participated in an integrated writing program and midcareer faculty in leadership development. RESULTS: Overall attendance of the 51 participants was 96%, and only 3 of 51 faculty who completed the program left the medical school during the 4 years. All faculty completed a written detailed structured academic development plan. Participants experienced an enhanced, inclusive, and appreciative culture; clarified their own career goals, values, strengths and priorities; enhanced their enthusiasm for collaboration; and developed skills. DISCUSSION: The program results highlight the need for faculty to personally experience the power of forming deep relationships with their peers for fostering successful career development and vitality. The outcomes of faculty humanity, vitality, professionalism, relationships, appreciation of diversity, and creativity are essential to the multiple missions of academic medicine.

Faculty Vitality-Surviving the Challenges Facing Academic Health Centers: A National Survey of Medical Faculty.

PURPOSE: Faculty with high vitality are essential to the missions of academic health centers (AHCs). Because little is known about how to measure or enhance faculty vitality, the authors assessed current faculty vitality and identified its predictors. METHOD: In a stratified random sample of 26 nationally representative U.S. AHCs, the authors surveyed 4,578 full-time faculty during 2007-2009. The validated survey measured detailed faculty perceptions of their professional experiences and organizational culture. Vitality was measured with a previously evaluated five-item scale. RESULTS: Of the faculty invited, 2,381 (52%) responded, with 2,218 eligible for analysis. Respondents included 512 (23%) underrepresented in medicine minority (URMM) faculty and 1,172 (53%) women. In a multivariable model including individual- and AHC-level factors, the strongest predictors of vitality were faculty members' perceptions of four dimensions of AHC culture: Relationships/inclusion, Values alignment, Work-life integration, and Institutional support (all P < .001). Weaker predictors were faculty age, institution type (public/private), and the AHC's National Institutes of Health funding rank (all P ≤ .03). Half of the respondents scored high on vitality, whereas 25% had low, or suboptimal, scores. Holding perceptions of culture constant, neither female nor URMM faculty had vitality scores that were different on average from male or nonminority faculty. CONCLUSIONS: A large percentage of faculty lack the vitality essential to meeting the AHC missions of discovery, education, and patient care. Enhancing faculty vitality, and AHC resilience, requires more attention to strengthening relationships, improving the misalignment between faculty and institutional values, and improving work-life integration.

Addressing disparities in academic medicine: what of the minority tax?

BACKGROUND: The proportion of black, Latino, and Native American faculty in U.S. academic medical centers has remained almost unchanged over the last 20 years. Some authors credit the "minority tax"-the burden of extra responsibilities placed on minority faculty in the name of diversity. This tax is in reality very complex, and a major source of inequity in academic medicine. DISCUSSION: The "minority tax" is better described as an Underrepresented Minority in Medicine (URMM) faculty responsibility disparity. This disparity is evident in many areas: diversity efforts, racism, isolation, mentorship, clinical responsibilities, and promotion. The authors examine the components of the URMM responsibility disparity and use information from the medical literature and from human resources to suggest practical steps that can be taken by academic leaders and policymakers to move toward establishing faculty equity and thus increase the numbers of black, Latino, and Native American faculty in academic medicine.

Preparing culture change agents for academic medicine in a multi-institutional consortium: the C - change learning action network.

INTRODUCTION: Research suggests an ongoing need for change in the culture of academic medicine. This article describes the structure, activities and evaluation of a culture change project: the C - Change Learning Action Network (LAN) and its impact on participants. The LAN was developed to create the experience of a culture that would prepare participants to facilitate a culture in academic medicine that would be more collaborative, inclusive, relational, and that supports the humanity and vitality of faculty. METHODS: Purposefully diverse faculty, leaders, and deans from 5 US medical schools convened in 2 1/2-day meetings biannually over 4 years. LAN meetings employed experiential, cognitive, and affective learning modes; innovative dialogue strategies; and reflective practice aimed at facilitating deep dialogue, relationship formation, collaboration, authenticity, and transformative learning to help members experience the desired culture. Robust aggregated qualitative and quantitative data collected from the 5 schools were used to inform and stimulate culture-change plans. RESULTS: Quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods were used. Participants indicated that a safe, supportive, inclusive, collaborative culture was established in LAN and highly valued. LAN members reported a deepened understanding of organizational change, new and valued interpersonal connections, increased motivation and resilience, new skills and approaches, increased self-awareness and personal growth, emotional connection to the issues of diversity and inclusion, and application of new learnings in their work. DISCUSSION: A carefully designed multi-institutional learning community can transform the way participants experience and view institutional culture. It can motivate and prepare them to be change agents in their own institutions.