Dataset Information

Gender-based Barriers in the Advancement of Women Leaders in Emergency Medicine: A Multi-institutional Qualitative Study

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Leadership positions occupied by women within academic emergency medicine have remained stagnant despite increasing numbers of women with faculty appointments. We distributed a multi-institutional survey to women faculty and residents to evaluate categorical characteristics contributing to success and differences between the two groups.

Methods

An institutional review board-approved electronic survey was distributed to women faculty and residents at eight institutions and were completed anonymously. We created survey questions to assess multiple categories: determination; resiliency; career support and obstacles; career aspiration; and gender discrimination. Most questions used a Likert five-point scale. Responses for each question and category were averaged and deemed significant if the average was greater than or equal to 4 in the affirmative, or less than or equal to 2 in the negative. We calculated proportions for binary questions.

Results

The overall response rate was 55.23% (95/172). The faculty response rate was 54.1% (59/109) and residents’ response rate was 57.1% (36/63). Significant levels of resiliency were reported, with a mean score of 4.02. Childbearing and rearing were not significant barriers overall but were more commonly reported as barriers for faculty over residents (P <0.001). Obstacles reported included a lack of confidence during work-related negotiations and insufficient research experience. Notably, 68.4% (65/95) of respondents experienced gender discrimination and 9.5% (9/95) reported at least one encounter of sexual assault by a colleague or supervisor during their career.

Conclusion

Targeted interventions to promote female leadership in academic emergency medicine include coaching on negotiation skills, improved resources and mentorship to support research, and enforcement of safe work environments. Female emergency physician resiliency is high and not a barrier to career advancement.

SUBMITTER: Graham E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8597699 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAccording to the American Association of Medical Colleges, women comprise 26% of full professors and 19% of medical school department chairs. African American and Latino faculty comprise 4.6% of full professors and 6.9% of department chairs.ObjectiveBecause of the lack of representation of women and racial/ethnic minority faculty at the highest levels of academic medicine, this study examines the perceptions of barriers to advancement by men and women academic medical school faculty of differing races and ethnicities to explore potential differences in perceptions by demographic group.DesignSemi-structured one-on-one interviews were conducted between July and September 2017.ParticipantsIn order to give all faculty a chance to participate, faculty of all ranks and specialties were recruited from one southeastern medical school to participate in the study.ApproachInterviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by 3 members of the research team using an inductive approach to thematic analysis. Participants were organized into 4 groups for analysis-underrepresented in medicine (URiM) women, majority women, URiM men, majority men.Key resultsSixty-four faculty consented to participate in the study (56.2% women, 34.4% URiM). Subthemes were grouped under three main themes: Perceptions of Barriers to Advancement of Women Faculty, Perceptions of Barriers to Advancement of African American and Latino Faculty, and Perceptions of the Institutional Climate for Diversity. Majority men tended to voice distinctly different perspectives than the other three demographic groups, with the most notable differences between majority men and URiM women. Majority men tended to suggest that the advancement of women and URiM faculty was acceptable or getting better, the lack of URiM faculty in leadership was due mainly to pipeline issues, and women choose not to advance to leadership positions.ConclusionWe found that participant gender and race/ethnicity shaped perspectives of medical school faculty advancement in distinct ways.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic added new and great uncertainty to the typical approach to applying into emergency medicine (EM) for medical students. There are little data on students' lived experience of applying during this time period. We performed a multi-institutional survey of EM-bound students' experiences with preparing to apply into EM during the pandemic.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional survey design study of fourth-year students preparing to apply into EM during the 2020-2021 academic year. All self-identified EM-bound students at four participating institutions were recruited by email in June 2020 to participate in a 13-item, 5-point Likert-scale survey. Univariate descriptive statistics, response rate, and nonresponse bias were calculated.ResultsSixty-seven of 125 eligible students responded for an overall response rate of 53.6%. Nonresponse bias for specific survey items ranged from 0.01 to 0.12. Students rated the importance of securing an EM rotation at their home institution the highest of any item (mean ± SD = 4.81 ± 0.68). Students indicated higher satisfaction with advice from their department of EM (mean ± SD = 4.28 ± 0.75) than from their school of medicine (mean ± SD = 3.52 ± 0.89). Students indicated higher confidence in their home EM rotations' ability to assure adequate personal protective equipment (PPE; mean ± SD = 3.91 ± 0.83) than an away rotation (mean ± SD = 2.82, 1.09). Students reported feeling between moderately and quite stressed about applying into EM this year (mean ± SD = 3.49 ± 1.01), but reported the financial stress the lowest of any item (mean ± SD = 1.46 ± 0.84). Students rated it highly important that away rotations prioritize students from institutions without an EM residency (mean ± SD = 4.51 ± 0.93).ConclusionMedical students applying into EM during the COVID-19 pandemic felt confident in their EM advisors' recommendations and their home institution's PPE provision. Students with EM residency programs at their schools recognized the importance of away rotations being prioritized for students from schools without EM residency programs. Strong EM advising is important to students.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment of female physicians are well documented. The #MeToo movement has brought renewed attention to these problems. This study examined academic emergency physicians' experiences with workplace gender discrimination and sexual harassment. METHODS:We conducted a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of emergency medicine (EM) faculty across six programs. Survey items included the following: the Overt Gender Discrimination at Work (OGDW) Scale; the frequency and source of experienced and observed discrimination; and whether subjects had encountered unwanted sexual behaviors by a work superior or colleague in their careers. For the latter question, we asked subjects to characterize the behaviors and whether those experiences had a negative effect on their self-confidence and career advancement. We made group comparisons using t-tests or chi-square analyses, and evaluated relationships between gender and physicians' experiences using correlation analyses. RESULTS:A total of 141 out of 352 (40.1%) subjects completed at least a portion of the survey. Women reported higher mean OGDW scores than men (15.4 vs 10.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.6-6.8). Female faculty were also more likely to report having experienced gender-based discriminatory treatment than male faculty (62.7% vs 12.5%; 95% CI, 35.1%-65.4%), although male and female faculty were equally likely to report having observed gender-based discriminatory treatment of another physician (64.7% vs 56.3%; 95% CI, 8.6%-25.5%). The three most frequent sources of experienced or observed gender-based discriminatory treatment were patients, consulting or admitting physicians, and nursing staff. The majority of women reported having encountered unwanted sexual behaviors in their careers, with a significantly greater proportion of women reporting them compared to men (52.9% vs 26.2%, 95% CI, 9.9%-43.4%). The majority of unwanted behaviors were sexist remarks and sexual advances. Of those respondents who encountered these unwanted behaviors, 22.9% and 12.5% reported at least somewhat negative effects on their self-confidence and career advancement. CONCLUSION:Female EM faculty perceived more gender-based discrimination in their workplaces than their male counterparts. The majority of female and approximately a quarter of male EM faculty encountered unwanted sexual behaviors in their careers.

Project description:BackgroundGender inequities are documented in academic medicine. Within General Internal Medicine (GIM), there are fewer female division directors and first and last authors on publications. With gender parity in US medical school graduates and with Academic Hospital (AH) medicine being a relatively newer discipline, one might postulate that AH would have less gender inequity.DesignA national survey of AH programs was developed via literature review and expert recommendations. Domains included program and faculty information. Gender of the leader was determined via website or telephone call.ParticipantsLeaders of AH programs associated with the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC). Programs without a primary teaching hospital or hospitalist program and those not staffed by university-affiliated physicians were excluded.Main measuresDescription and characteristics of leaders and programs including a multivariable analysis of gender of hospitalist leaders and the portion of female faculty.Key results59% response rate (80 of 135); there were no differences between responders/non-responders in NIH funding (p = 0.12), type of institution (p = 0.09), geographic region (p = 0.15), or year established (p = 0.86). Reported number of female and male faculty were approximately equal. 80% of hospitalist leaders were male; 37% of male hospitalist leaders were professors, no female leaders were professors. In univariate and multivariate analysis only the number of hospitals staffed was a significant predictor of having a female hospitalist leader. There were no significant predictors of having fewer female faculty.ConclusionThis study demonstrated gender inequality in academic hospital medicine regarding leadership and rank. Though there was equal gender distribution of faculty, among leaders most were men and all "full professors" were men. As diversity benefits the tripartite mission research on methods, initiatives and programs that achieve gender equity in leadership are needed.

Project description:BackgroundA longstanding gender gap exists in the retention of women in academic medicine. Several strategies have been suggested to promote the retention of women, but there are limited data on impacts of interventions.ObjectiveTo identify what institutional factors, if any, impact women faculty's intent to remain in academic medicine, either at their institutions or elsewhere.DesignA survey was designed to evaluate institutional retention-linked factors, programs and interventions, their impact, and women's intent to remain at their institutions and within academic medicine. Survey data were analyzed using non-parametric statistics and regression analyses.ParticipantsWomen with faculty appointments within departments of medicine recruited from national organizations and specific social media groups.Main measuresInstitutional factors that may be associated with women's decision to remain at their current institutions or within academic medicine.Key resultsOf 410 surveys of women at institutions across the USA, fair and transparent family leave policies and opportunities for work-life integration showed strong associations with intent to remain at one's institution (leave policies: OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.20-4.18, p = 0.01; work-life: OR 4.82, 95% CI 2.50-9.64, p < 0.001) and within academic medicine (leave policies: OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.09-5.03, p = 0.03; work-life: OR 4.66, 95% CI 2.04-11.36, p < 0.001). Other institutional factors associated with intent to remain in academics include peer mentorship (OR 3.16, 95% CI 1.56-6.57, p < 0.01) and women role models (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.04-4.68, p = 0.04). Institutions helping employees recognize bias, fair compensation and provision of resources, satisfaction with mentorship, peer mentorship, and women role models within the institutions were associated with intent to remain at an institution.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that institutional factors such as support for work-life integration, fair and transparent policies, and meaningful mentorship opportunities appear impactful in the retention of women in academic medicine.

Project description:BackgroundPediatric emergency physicians complete either a pediatric or emergency residency before fellowship training. Fewer emergency graduates are pursuing a pediatric emergency fellowship during the past decade, and the reasons for this decrease are unclear.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to explore emergency residents' incentives and barriers to pursuing a fellowship in pediatric emergency medicine (PEM).MethodsThis was a cross-sectional survey-based study. In 2016, we emailed the study survey to all Emergency Medicine Residents' Association (EMRA) members. Survey questions included respondents' interest in a PEM fellowship and perceived incentives and barriers to PEM.ResultsOf 6620 EMRA members in 2016, 322 (5.0%) responded to the survey. Respondents were 59.6% male, with a mean age of 30.6 years. A total of 105 respondents (32.6%) were in their first year of emergency medicine residency, 92 (28.6%) were in their second year, 77 (23.9%) were in their third year, and 48 (14.9%) were in their fourth or fifth year. A total of 102 (31.8%) respondents planned to pursue fellowship training, whereas 120 (37.4%) were undecided. A total of 140 (43.8%) respondents reported considering a PEM fellowship at some point. Among these respondents, the most common incentives for PEM fellowship were (1) a desire to improve pediatric care in community emergency departments (86, 26.7%), (2) to develop an academic focus (54, 16.8%), and (3) because a mentor encouraged a PEM fellowship (40, 12.4%). A perceived lack of financial benefit (142, 44.1%) and length of PEM fellowship training (89, 27.6%) were the most commonly reported barriers.ConclusionIn a cross-sectional survey of EMRA members, almost half of the respondents considered a PEM fellowship. PEM leaders who want to promote emergency medicine to pediatric emergency residents will need to leverage the incentives and mitigate the perceived barriers to a PEM fellowship to increase the number of emergency residency applicants.