Dataset Information

Impact of gender and caregiving responsibilities on academic success in hematology.

ABSTRACT: We previously identified gender disparities in academic success during evaluation of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) Clinical Research Training Institute (CRTI) and hypothesized that it may be related to caregiving. The objective was to evaluate the impact of gender and caregiving responsibilities on academic success. A cross-sectional survey that included a question about caregiving responsibilities was distributed to alumni who participated in CRTI from 2003 to 2016 and asked about academic productivity in the previous 3 years. Publications and grants were abstracted from submitted curriculum vitae. Academic success was defined as number of first- or senior-author publications, total publications, grants, and percent effort in research. Of 280 potential respondents, 258 responded (92% response rate), 169 (66%) had caregiving responsibilities, and 110 (43%) were men. Respondents with caregiving responsibilities had fewer first- or senior-author publications (median, 3 vs 5; P = .003) and less percent effort in research (median, 40% vs 50%; P = .006). Men had more first- or senior-author publications (median, 4 vs 3; P = .002) and more total publications (median, 12 vs 6.5; P = .0002) than women. When stratified by those without (P = .0001) or with (P = .042) caregiving responsibilities, men had more publications than women. Among men, caregiving responsibilities significantly reduced all outcomes. However, among women, caregiving did not have an impact. In conclusion, men had more publications than women whether or not they had caregiving responsibilities. However, among men, caregiving reduced academic productivity whereas among women, caregiving did not have impact. The scientific community will need to continue to identify the reasons for disparities and implement changes to address them.

SUBMITTER: King AA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7042991 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Physician-scientists (the physician-scientist workforce) are aging, and there are too few physician-scientists in the pipeline to replace those who retire. Moreover, the pipeline is leaky because some trainees and junior physician-scientists choose other career paths. Significant attention has been directed toward patching the leaking pipeline, thereby increasing the quantity of physician-scientists. Less attention has been devoted to identifying and training more successful physician-scientists, thereby increasing the quality of the pool and making up for the attrition. Though all training programs strive to develop more successful graduates, there is no clear understanding of what constitutes predictors of future success. Identifying characteristics of success would enable those who recruit trainees-and later hire and fund physician-scientists-to make more informed decisions. It also could impact on the training, as it would be possible to focus on competencies that foster success. Predictors of success are therefore important. Prior to taking on this task, however, we must first define success for physician-scientists. METHODS:To identify likely characteristics of success, we undertook a qualitative case study where 21 physician-scientists were interviewed to determine their perceptions of what constitutes a successful physician-scientist. Sixteen interviewees were selected based on convenience sampling, while the remaining five were selected based on the snowball effect. Interviews were transcribed and coded in Dedoose® and a qualitative analysis was conducted using an inductive approach to content analysis. RESULTS:There was considerable variation in their perceptions based on seniority and gender. Junior physician-scientists focused on metrics on which their promotion is based, e.g., publications and grants; senior physician-scientists focused on their legacy, e.g., contribution to the field and mentoring. Women were more likely to emphasize objective measures of success, like publications, while concurrently concentrating on relational skills, like networking, collaboration and public recognition. Men emphasized the impact of science and subjective characteristics like boldness, confidence and critical thinking. CONCLUSION:Clearly, physician-scientists are not working off of a uniform metric of success, thereby making their evaluation and remuneration a convoluted process, especially if those evaluating the physician-scientists are not of the same mind as to the definition of success.

Project description:The acceptance of students to a medical school places a considerable emphasis on performance in standardized tests and undergraduate grade point average (uGPA). Traditionally, applicants may be judged as a homogeneous population according to simple quantitative thresholds that implicitly assume a linear relationship between scores and academic success. This 'one-size-fits-all' approach ignores the notion that individuals may show distinct patterns of achievement and follow diverse paths to success. In this study, we examined a dataset composed of 53 variables extracted from the admissions application records of 1,088 students matriculating to NYU School of Medicine between the years 2006-2014. We defined training and test groups and applied K-means clustering to search for distinct groups of applicants. Building an optimized logistic regression model, we then tested the predictive value of this clustering for estimating the success of applicants in medical school, aggregating eight performance measures during the subsequent medical school training as a success factor. We found evidence for four distinct clusters of students-we termed 'signatures'-which differ most substantially according to the absolute level of the applicant's uGPA and its trajectory over the course of undergraduate education. The 'risers' signature showed a relatively higher uGPA and also steeper trajectory; the other signatures showed each remaining combination of these two main factors: 'improvers' relatively lower uGPA, steeper trajectory; 'solids' higher uGPA, flatter trajectory; 'statics' both lower uGPA and flatter trajectory. Examining the success index across signatures, we found that the risers and the statics have significantly higher and lower likelihood of quantifiable success in medical school, respectively. We also found that each signature has a unique set of features that correlate with its success in medical school. The big data approach presented here can more sensitively uncover success potential since it takes into account the inherent heterogeneity within the student population.

Dataset Information

Impact of gender and caregiving responsibilities on academic success in hematology.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets