Dataset Information

Training Programs for Fundamental and Clinician-Scientists: Balanced Outcomes for Graduates by Gender.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Women scientists are less likely to obtain Assistant Professorship and achieve promotion, and obtain less grant funding than men. Scientist/clinician-scientist training programs which provide salary awards as well as training and mentorship are a potential intervention to improve outcomes among women scientists. We hypothesized whether a programmatic approach to scientist/clinician-scientist training is associated with improved outcomes for women scientists in Canada when compared with salary awards alone. Trainees within the Kidney Research Scientist Core Education and National Training Program (KRESCENT), Canadian Child Health Clinician Scientist Program (CCHCSP), and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) salary award programs were evaluated.

Objective

To examine whether the structured KRESCENT training program with salary support improves academic success for women scientists relative to salary awards alone.

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting

Canadian national research scientist and clinician-scientist training programs and salary awards.

Participants

KRESCENT cohort (n = 59, 2005-2017), CCHCSP cohort (n = 58, 2002-2015), and CIHR (n = 571, 2005-2015) Salary Awardees for postdoctoral fellows (PDF) and new investigators (NI).

Measurements

National operating grant funding success, achieving an academic position as an Assistant Professor for PDF, or achieving promotion to Associate Professor for NI.

Methods

The gender distribution of each cohort was determined using first name and NamepediA and was examined for PDF and NI, followed by a description of trainee outcomes by gender and training level.

Results

KRESCENT and CIHR PDF were balanced (12/27, 44% men and 55/116, 47% women) while CCHCSP had a higher proportion of women (13/20, 65%). KRESCENT and CCHCSP NI retained women scientists (19/32, 59% and 22/38, 58% women), whereas CIHR NI had fewer women (165/455, 36% women vs 290/455, 64% men, P = 0.01). There was a high rate of NI operating grant success (91%-95%) with no gender differences in each cohort. There was a high proportion of CCHCSP PDF who achieved an Assistant Professorship (18/20, 90%) that may be due in part to a longer follow-up period (9.3 ± 3 years) compared with KRESCENT PDF (7/27, 26%, 0.88 ± 4.5 years), and these data were not available for CIHR PDF. Women KRESCENT NI showed increased promotion to Associate Professor (P = 0.02, 0.25 ± 3.2 years follow-up) and CCHCSP NI had high promotion rates (37/38, 97%, 6.9 ± 3.6 years follow-up) irrespective of gender. There was an overall trend toward more men pursuing biomedical research.

Limitations

KRESCENT and CCHCSP training program cohort size and heterogeneity; assigning gender by first name may result in misclassification; lack of data on the respective applicant pools; and inability to examine intersectionality with gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation.

Conclusion

Overall trainee performance across programs is remarkable by community standards regardless of gender. KRESCENT and CCHCSP training programs demonstrated balanced success in their PDF and NI, whereas the CIHR awardees had reduced representation of women scientists from PDF to NI. This exploratory study highlights the utility of programmatic training approaches like the KRESCENT program as potential tools to support and retain women scientists in the academic pipeline during the challenging PDF to NI transition period.

SUBMITTER: Rampersad C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8419530 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine sex differences in the specialty training recruitment outcomes of UK medical graduates; and whether sex differences were explained by prior academic attainment and previous fitness to practise (FtP) declarations.DesignRetrospective longitudinal cohort study.SettingAdministrative data on entrants to all UK medical schools from the UK Medical Education Database.Participants10 559 doctors (6 155; 58% female) who entered a UK medical school in 2007 or 2008 and were eligible to apply for specialty training by 2015.Primary outcome measureOdds of application, offer and acceptance to any specialty training programme, and on to each of the nine largest training programmes, adjusting for sex, other demographics, prior academic attainment, FtP declaration and medical school.ResultsAcross all specialties, there were no sex differences in applications for specialty training, but women had increased odds of getting an offer (OR=1.40; 95% CI=1.25 to 1.57; p<0.001) and accepting one (OR=1.43; 95% CI=1.19 to 1.71; p<0.001). Seven of the nine largest specialties showed significant sex differences in applications, which remained after adjusting for other factors. In the adjusted models, Paediatrics (OR=1.57; 95% CI=1.01 to 2.46; p=0.046) and general practice (GP) (OR=1.23; 95% CI=1.03 to 1.46; p=0.017) were the only specialties to show sex differences in offers, both favouring women. GP alone showed sex differences in acceptances, with women being more likely to accept (OR=1.34; 95% CI=1.03 to 1.76; p=0.03). Doctors with an FtP declaration were slightly less likely to apply to specialty training overall (OR=0.84; 95% CI=0.71 to 1.00; p=0.048) and less likely to accept an offer to any programme (OR=0.71; 95% CI=0.52 to 0.98; p=0.036), after adjusting for confounders.ConclusionsSex segregation between medical specialties is due to differential application, although research is needed to understand why men are less likely to be offered a place on to GP and Paediatrics training, and if offered GP are less likely to accept.