Dataset Information

Declining racial and ethnic representation in clinical academic medicine: A longitudinal study of 16 US medical specialties.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate trends in racial, ethnic, and sex representation at US medical schools across 16 specialties: internal medicine, pediatrics, surgery, psychiatry, radiology, anesthesiology, obstetrics and gynecology, neurology, family practice, pathology, emergency medicine, orthopedic surgery, ophthalmology, otolaryngology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and dermatology. Using a novel, Census-derived statistical measure of diversity, the S-score, we quantified the degree of underrepresentation for racial minority groups and female faculty by rank for assistant, associate, and full professors from 1990-2016.

Methods

This longitudinal study of faculty diversity uses data obtained from the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) Faculty Roster from US allopathic medical schools. The proportion of professors of racial minority groups and female faculty by rank was compared to the US population based on data from the US Census Bureau. The Roster includes data on 52,939 clinical medical faculty in 1990, and 129,545 in 2016, at the assistant professor level or higher. The primary measure used in this study was the S-score, a measure of representation based on the probability of the observed frequency of faculty from a racial/ethnic group and sex, given the racial and ethnic distribution of the US. Pearson correlations and 95% confidence intervals for S-score with time were used to measure trends.

Results

Blacks and Hispanics showed statistically significant trends (p<0.05) towards increasing underrepresentation in most specialties and are more underrepresented in 2016 than in 1990 across all ranks and specialties analyzed, except for Black females in obstetrics & gynecology. White females were also underrepresented in many specialties and in a subset of specialties trended toward greater underrepresentation.

Conclusions

Current efforts to improve faculty diversity are inadequate in generating an academic physician workforce that represents the diversity of the US. More aggressive measures for faculty recruitment, retention, and promotion are necessary to reach equity in academia and healthcare.

SUBMITTER: Lett E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6239326 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceWith increasing efforts to create a diverse physician workforce that is reflective of the demographic characteristics of the US population, it remains unclear whether progress has been made since 2009, when the Liaison Committee on Medical Education set forth new diversity accreditation guidelines.ObjectiveTo examine demographic trends of medical school applicants and matriculants relative to the overall age-adjusted US population.Design, setting, and participantsRepeated cross-sectional study of Association of American Medical Colleges data on self-reported race/ethnicity and sex of medical school applicants and matriculants compared with population distribution of the medical school-aged population (20-34 years). Data from US allopathic medical school applicants and matriculants from 2002 to 2017 were analyzed.Main outcomes and measuresTrends were measured using the representation quotient, the ratio of the proportion of a racial/ethnic group in the medical student body to the general age-matched US population. Linear regression estimates were used to evaluate the trend over time for Asian, black, white, Hispanic, American Indian or Alaska Native (AIAN), and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander medical school matriculants by sex.ResultsThe number of medical school applicants increased 53%, from 33 625 to 51 658, and the number of matriculants increased 29.3%, from 16 488 to 21 326, between 2002 and 2017. During that time, proportions of black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander male and female individuals aged 20 to 34 years in the United States increased, while proportions of white male and female individuals decreased and proportions of AIAN male and female individuals were stable. From 2002 to 2017, black, Hispanic, and AIAN applicants and matriculants of both sexes were underrepresented, with a significant trend toward decreased representation for black female applicants from 2002 to 2012 (representation quotient slope, -0.011; 95% CI, -0.015 to -0.007; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceBlack, Hispanic, and AIAN students remain underrepresented among medical school matriculants compared with the US population. This underrepresentation has not changed significantly since the institution of the Liaison Committee of Medical Education diversity accreditation guidelines in 2009. This study's findings suggest a need for both the development and the evaluation of more robust policies and programs to create a physician workforce that is demographically representative of the US population.

Project description:ImportanceDespite equal numbers of men and women entering medical school, women are underrepresented in the upper echelons of academic medicine and receive less compensation and research funding. Citation-related publication productivity metrics, such as the h-index, are increasingly used for hiring, salary, grants, retention, promotion, and tenure decisions. Exploring sex differences in these metrics across academic medicine provides deeper insight into why differences are observed in career outcomes.ObjectiveTo systematically examine the available literature on sex differences in h-index of academic faculty physicians across all medical specialties and all levels of academic rank.Data sourcesMedical literature with the term h-index found in PubMed and published between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018, was used.Study selectionA PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes), PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses), and MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) selection protocol was used to find observational studies that published h-indexes for faculty physicians that were stratified by sex. Studies were excluded if they were review articles, retracted, or unavailable online. Ultimately, 14 of 786 studies (1.78%) met the inclusion criteria.Data extraction and synthesisData from 9 studies across 16 specialties were examined using weighted random-effects meta-analyses. Five studies were excluded because of overlapping specialties with another study or because they were missing appropriate statistics for the meta-analysis. Four of these studies were included in qualitative synthesis to bring the total to 13 studies.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary study outcome was the h-index.ResultsThe meta-analysis included 10 665 North American unique academic physicians across 9 different studies from the years 2009 to 2018. Of the 10 665 physicians, 2655 (24.89%) were women. Summary effect sizes for mean h-indexes of men and women and mean h-index difference between men and women were determined for all faculty physicians and at each academic rank. Overall, female faculty had lower h-indexes than male faculty (mean difference, -4.09; 95% CI, -5.44 to -2.73; P < .001). When adjusting for academic rank, female faculty still had lower h-indexes than male faculty at the ranks of assistant professor (mean difference, -1.3; 95% CI, -1.90 to -0.72; P < .001), associate professor (mean difference, -2.09; 95% CI, -3.40 to -0.78; P = .002), and professor (mean difference, -3.41; 95% CI, -6.24 to -0.58; P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, women had lower h-indexes than men across most specialties and at all academic ranks, but it is unclear why these differences exist. These findings suggest that future investigation should be conducted regarding the causes of lower h-indexes in women and that interventions should be developed to provide a more equitable environment for all physicians regardless of sex.

Project description:ImportanceWomen in medicine have been underrepresented at medical conferences; however, contributing factors have not been well studied.ObjectiveTo examine the distribution of invited conference speakers by gender and factors associated with representation of women as speakers.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional analysis used medical conference programs from March 2017 to November 2018 across 20 specialties in 5 regions (Australasia, Canada, Europe, the UK, and the US) that were obtained online or from conference conveners.ExposuresGender of invited lecturers, panelists, and planning committee members for each conference based on name or picture and publicly available data on compositions of specialties by gender for included regions.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes included the proportion of female speakers (invited lecturers and panelists), the number of single-gender panels, and the proportion of female speakers compared with the specialties' gender composition. Correlations between the gender composition of conference planning committees and the proportion of female speakers were assessed. Multivariable regression models were used to evaluate factors independently associated with the proportion of female speakers at conferences.ResultsA total of 8535 sessions (panels and invited lectures) with 23 440 speakers across 98 conferences were identified. Women accounted for 7064 (30.1%) of speakers; 1981 of 5409 panels (36.6%) consisted of men only, and 363 (6.7%) consisted of women only. The proportion of women speakers varied by region and specialty from 5.8% to 74.5%. In general, specialties with low baseline proportions of women (<20%) had a ratio of female speakers to female specialists greater than 1, whereas specialties with high baseline proportions of women (>40%) had a ratio of female speakers to female specialists less that 1. There was a strong positive correlation between the proportion of women on planning committees and conference representation of female speakers (r = 0.67; P < .001). The association remained statistically significant after controlling for other variables, including the regional gender balance of the specialty (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.04-1.15; P < .001 for every 10% increase in the proportion of women on the planning committee).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, the proportion of female speakers at medical conferences was lower than that of male speakers, and more than one-third of panels were composed of men only. Increasing the number of women on planning committees may help address gender inequities.

Project description:IntroductionDespite the increasing diversity of individuals entering medicine, physicians from racial and sexual minority groups continue to experience bias and discrimination in the workplace. The objective of this study was to determine the current experiences and perceptions of discrimination on the basis of race and sexual orientation among academic emergency medicine (EM) faculty.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of EM faculty across six programs. Survey items included the Overt Gender Discrimination at Work (OGDW) Scale adapted for race and sexual orientation, and the frequency and source of experienced and observed discrimination. Group comparisons were made using t-tests or chi-square analyses, and relationships between race or sexual orientation, and we evaluated physicians' experiences using correlation analyses.ResultsA total of 141 out of 352 (40.1%) subjects completed at least a portion of the survey. Non-White physicians reported higher mean racial OGDW scores than their White counterparts (13.4 vs 8.6; 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference, -7.7 - -2.9). Non-White EM faculty were also more likely to report having experienced discriminatory treatment based on race than were White EM faculty (48.0% vs 12.6%; CI for difference, 16.6% - 54.2%), although both groups were equally likely to report having observed race-based discrimination of another physician. EM faculty who identified as sexual minorities reported higher mean sexual minority OGDW scores than their heterosexual counterparts (11.1 vs 7.1; 95% CI for difference, -7.3 - -0.6). There were no significant differences between sexual minority and heterosexual faculty in their reports of experiencing or observing discrimination based on sexual orientation.ConclusionEM faculty from racial and sexual minority groups perceived more discrimination based on race or sexual orientation in their workplace than their majority counterparts. EM faculty regardless of race or sexual orientation were similar in their observations of discriminatory treatment of another physician based on race or sexual orientation.

Project description:IntroductionCompassion fatigue (CF) is the emotional and physical burden felt by those helping others in distress, leading to a reduced capacity and interest in being empathetic towards future suffering. Emergency care providers are at an increased risk of CF secondary to their first responder roles and exposure to traumatic events. We aimed to investigate the current state of compassion fatigue among emergency medicine (EM) resident physicians, including an assessment of contributing factors.MethodsWe distributed a validated electronic questionnaire consisting of the Professional Quality of Life Scale with subscales for the three components of CF (compassion satisfaction, burnout and secondary traumatic stress), with each category scored independently. We collected data pertaining to day- versus night-shift distribution, hourly workload and child dependents. We included residents in EM, neurology, orthopedics, family medicine, pediatrics, obstetrics, and general surgery.ResultsWe surveyed 255 residents, with a response rate of 75%. Of the 188 resident respondents, 18% worked a majority of their clinical shifts overnight, and 32% had child dependents. Burnout scores for residents who worked greater than 80 hours per week, or primarily worked overnight shifts, were higher than residents who worked less than 80 hours (mean score 25.0 vs 21.5; p=0.013), or did not work overnight (mean score 23.5 vs 21.3; p=0.022). EM residents had similar scores in all three components of CF when compared to other specialties. Secondary traumatic stress scores for residents who worked greater than 80 hours were higher than residents who worked less than 80 hours (mean score 22.2 vs 19.5; p=0.048), and those with child dependents had higher secondary traumatic stress than those without children (mean score 21.0 vs 19.1; p=0.012).ConclusionCF scores in EM residents are similar to residents in other surgical and medical specialties. Residents working primarily night shifts and those working more than 80 hours per week appear to be at high risk of developing compassion fatigue. Residents with children are more likely to experience secondary traumatic stress.

Project description:ImportanceIdentifying gaps in inclusivity of Indigenous individuals is key to diversifying academic medical programs, increasing American Indian and Alaska Native representation, and improving disparate morbidity and mortality outcomes in American Indian and Alaska Native populations.ObjectiveTo examine representation of American Indian and Alaska Native individuals at different stages in the 2018-2019 academic medical training continuum and trends (2011-2020) of American Indian and Alaska Native representation in residency specialties.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional, population-based analysis was conducted using self-reported race and ethnicity data on trainees from the Association of American Medical Colleges (2018), the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (2011-2018), and the US Census (2018). Data were analyzed between February 18, 2020, and March 4, 2021.ExposuresEnrolled trainees at specific stages of medical training.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the odds of representation of American Indian and Alaska Native individuals at successive academic medical stages in 2018-2019 compared with White individuals. Secondary outcomes comprised specialty-specific proportions of American Indian and Alaska Native residents from 2011 to 2020 and medical specialty-specific proportions of American Indian and Alaska Native physicians in 2018. Fisher exact tests were performed to calculate the odds of American Indian and Alaska Native representation at successive stages of medical training. Simple linear regressions were performed to assess trends across residency specialties.ResultsThe study data contained a total of 238 974 607 White and American Indian and Alaska Native US citizens, 24 795 US medical school applicants, 11 242 US medical school acceptees, 10 822 US medical school matriculants, 10 917 US medical school graduates, 59 635 residents, 518 874 active physicians, and 113 168 US medical school faculty. American Indian and Alaska Native individuals had a 63% lower odds of applying to medical school (odds ratio [OR], 0.37; 95% CI, 0.31-0.45) and 48% lower odds of holding a full-time faculty position (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.44-0.62) compared with their White counterparts, yet had 54% higher odds of working in a residency specialty deemed as a priority by the Indian Health Service (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.09-2.16). Of the 33 physician specialties analyzed, family medicine (0.55%) and pain medicine (0.46%) had more than an average proportion (0.41%) of American Indian and Alaska Native physicians compared with their representation across all specialties.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study noted 2 distinct stages in medical training with significantly lower representation of American Indian and Alaska Native compared with White individuals. An actionable framework to guide academic medical institutions on their Indigenous diversification and inclusivity efforts is proposed.

Project description:BackgroundRacial/ethnic disparities in access to diagnostic services are pervasive for autistic children. However, a few studies have examined racial/ethnic health disparities among autistic adults, who commonly experience higher rates of health conditions than non-autistic adults. We aimed at examining the intersection of autism and race/ethnicity in association with psychiatric and medical diagnoses.MethodsThe study population included adult members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California enrolled from 2008 to 2012. We ascertained 1507 adults who had an autism diagnosis documented in their electronic medical records. We sampled a matched control group of adults without an autism diagnosis (N = 15,070) at a 10:1 ratio. Our sample was 46% White, 17% Hispanic, 16% Asian, 7% Black, and 14% other race/ethnicity. We compared health diagnoses (a) between autistic and non-autistic adults within strata of race/ethnicity and (b) across race/ethnicity within strata of autistic and non-autistic adults. Lastly, we examined the interaction between autism and race/ethnicity on both multiplicative and additive scales.ResultsAutistic adults were more likely to be diagnosed with most medical and psychiatric conditions compared with their non-autistic counterparts of the same race/ethnicity. Among autistic adults, Black, Hispanic, and Asian adults were less likely to be diagnosed with psychiatric conditions and Black and Hispanic autistic adults were more likely to be diagnosed with obesity than their White counterparts. In interaction models, we found that adults who were Black and autistic were disproportionately less likely to be diagnosed with psychiatric conditions and autoimmune disease and more likely to be diagnosed with hypertension than expected.ConclusionHealth vulnerabilities may be compounded at the intersection of autism and race/ethnicity. Future research should continue to apply an intersectional lens toward understanding and addressing these disparities. Our findings likely underestimate the health disparities that exist in uninsured autistic adults and those living in other parts of the United States.