The under-representation of racially minoritised doctors in academic general practice training: a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: General practice has one of the most diverse medical training programmes in terms of sex and ethnic background. However, this diversity of race and ethnicity is not reflected in academic GP careers, with just 17% (n = 81/473) of academic GPs being from racially minoritised groups, according to the Medical Schools Council. AIM: To determine whether GP academic clinical fellow (ACF) trainees from racially minoritised backgrounds are proportionally represented, compared with the non-academic training programme, using the annual GP ACF conference as a proxy. DESIGN & SETTING: A retrospective analysis of conference programmes from national academic GP training conferences from 2018-2023 and demographic data obtained from Health Education England (HEE). METHOD: Using conference programmes and online searches, demographic information on conference speakers was obtained and a freedom of information request was made to HEE for the demographics of GP ACFs for corresponding years. This was compared with demographic data of GP trainees and academics. RESULTS: On average, there were 40 speakers each year at the conference. White females (average 20.2 speakers each year) were the most well represented group, followed by White males (average 12.5), Asian females (average 3.3), Asian males (average 1.8), Black males (average 0.7), and Black females (average 0.3). HEE data from 2022 revealed that 27 (71.1%) of the 38 (excluding five who did not state their ethnicity) ACFs were White British. CONCLUSION: GP academia should be more representative of the non-academic GP training scheme. Work needs to be done to understand and overcome the structural barriers to recruiting from racially minoritised groups.

Gender and ethnicity intersect to reduce participation at a large European hybrid HIV conference.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how gender and ethnicity of panel members intersect to effect audience participation at a large European hybrid conference. DESIGN: An observational cross-sectional study design was used to collect data at the conference and descriptive survey was used to collect data retrospectively from the participants. SETTING: European AIDS Clinical Society 18th Conference; a 3223-delegate, hybrid conference held online and in London over 4 days in October 2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We observed the number and type of questions asked at 12 of 69 sessions and described characteristics of the panel composition by ethnicity, gender and seniority. A postconference survey of conference attendees collated demographic information, number of questions asked during the conference and the reasons for not asking questions. RESULTS: Men asked the most questions and were more likely to ask multiple questions in the observed sessions (61.5%). People from white ethnic groups asked >95% of the questions in the observed sessions. The fewest questions were asked in the sessions with the least diverse panels in terms of both ethnicity and gender. Barriers to asking questions differed between genders and ethnicities. CONCLUSIONS: Our study aims to provide evidence to help conference organisers improve leadership, equality, diversity and inclusion in the professional medical conference setting. This will support equitable dissemination of knowledge and improve education and engagement of delegates. To our knowledge, this is the first study describing conference participation by both ethnicity and gender in panellists and delegates within a hybrid conference setting.

Methods and quality of disease models incorporating more than two sexually transmitted infections: a protocol for a systematic review of the evidence.

INTRODUCTION: Disease models can be useful tools for policy makers to inform their decisions. They can help to estimate the costs and benefits of interventions without conducting clinical trials and help to extrapolate the findings of clinical trials to a population level.Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) do not operate in isolation. Risk-taking behaviours and biological interactions can increase the likelihood of an individual being coinfected with more than one STI.Currently, few STI models consider coinfection or the interaction between STIs. We aim to identify and summarise STI models for two or more STIs and describe their modelling approaches. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Six databases (Cochrane, Embase, PLOS, ProQuest, Medline and Web of Science) were searched on 27 November 2018 to identify studies that focus on the reporting of the methodology and quality of models for at least two different STIs. The quality of all eligible studies will be accessed using a percentage scale published by Kopec et al . We will summarise all used approaches to model two or more STIs in one model. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework will be used to report all outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review. The results of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a suitable conference. The findings from this review will be used to inform the development of a new multi-STI model. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017076837.