Dataset Information

Identification and Assessment of Strategies to Address Gender Inequity in the Specialty of Critical Care Medicine: A Scoping Review, Modified Consensus Process, and Stakeholder Meeting.

ABSTRACT: We sought to identify and prioritize improvement strategies that Critical Care Medicine (CCM) programs could use to inform and advance gender equity among physicians in CCM.

Design

This study involved three sequential phases: 1) scoping review that identified strategies to improve gender equity in all medical specialties; 2) modified consensus process with 48 CCM stakeholders to rate and rank identified strategies; and 3) in-person stakeholder meeting to refine strategies and discuss facilitators and barriers to their implementation.

Setting

CCM.

Subjects

CCM stakeholders (physicians, researchers, and decision-makers; mutually inclusive).

Interventions

None.

Measurements and main results

We identified 190 unique strategies from 416 articles. Strategies were grouped thematically into 20 categories across four overarching pillars of equity: access, participation, reimbursement, and culture. Participants prioritized 22 improvement strategies for implementation in CCM. The top-rated strategy from each pillar included: 1) nominate gender diverse candidates for faculty positions and prestigious opportunities (equitable access); 2) mandate training in unconscious bias and equitable treatment for committee (e.g., hiring, promotion) members (equitable participation); 3) ensure equitable starting salaries regardless of sex or gender (equitable reimbursement); and, 4) conduct 360° evaluations of leaders (including their direct work circle of supervisors, peers, and subordinates) through a diversity lens (equitable culture). Interprofessional collaboration, leadership, and local champions were identified as key enablers for implementation.

Conclusions

We identified stakeholder-prioritized strategies that can be used to inform and enhance gender equity among physicians in CCM under four overarching equity pillars: access, participation, reimbursement, and culture. Implementation approaches should include education, policy creation, and measurement, and reporting.

SUBMITTER: Parsons Leigh J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8769084 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Aim: This study aimed to identify from different stakeholders the benefits and obstacles of implementing precision medicine in diabetic kidney disease (DKD) and to build consensus about a way forward in order to treat, prevent, or even reverse this disease. Methods: As part of an ongoing effort of moving implementation of precision medicine in DKD forward, a two-day consensus-building meeting was organized with different stakeholders involved in drug development and patient care in DKD, including patients, patient representatives, pharmaceutical industry, regulatory agencies representatives, health technology assessors, healthcare professionals, basic scientists, and clinical academic researchers. The meeting consisted of plenary presentations and discussions, and small group break-out sessions. Discussion topics were based on a symposium, focus groups and literature search. Benefits, obstacles and potential solutions toward implementing precision medicine were discussed. Results from the break-out sessions were presented in plenary and formed the basis of a broad consensus discussion to reach final conclusions. Throughout the meeting, participants answered several statement and open-ended questions on their mobile device, using a real-time online survey tool. Answers to the statement questions were analyzed descriptively. Results of the open-ended survey questions, the break-out sessions and the consensus discussion were analyzed qualitatively. Results and conclusion: Seventy-one participants from 26 countries attended the consensus-building meeting in Amsterdam, April 2019. During the opening plenary on the first day, the participants agreed with the statement that precision medicine is the way forward in DKD (n = 57, median 90, IQR [75-100]). Lack of efficient tools for implementation in practice and generating robust data were identified as significant obstacles. The identified benefits, e.g., improvement of the benefit-risk ratio of treatment, offer substantive incentives to find solutions for the identified obstacles. Earlier and increased multi-stakeholder collaboration and specific training may provide solutions to alter clinical and regulatory guidelines that lie at the basis of both obstacles and solutions. At the end of the second day, the opinion of the participants toward precision medicine in DKD was somewhat more nuanced (n = 45, median 83, IQR [70-92]) and they concluded that precision medicine is an important way forward in improving the treatment of patients with DKD.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is the most common acute leukemia in adults and has an unacceptably low cure rate. In recent years, a number of new treatment strategies and compounds were developed for the treatment of AML. There were several randomized controlled clinical trials with the objective to improve patients' management and patients' outcome in AML. Unfortunately, these trials are not always directly comparable since they do not measure the same outcomes, and currently there are no core outcome sets that can be used to guide outcome selection and harmonization in this disease area. The HARMONY (Healthcare Alliance for Resourceful Medicine Offensive against Neoplasms in Hematology) Alliance is a public-private European network established in 2017 and currently includes 53 partners and 32 associated members from 22 countries. Amongst many other goals of the HARMONY Alliance, Work Package 2 focuses on defining outcomes that are relevant to each hematological malignancy. Accordingly, this pilot study will be performed to define a core outcome set in AML. METHODS:The pilot study will use a three-round Delphi survey and a final consensus meeting to define a core outcome set. Participants will be recruited from different stakeholder groups, including patients, clinicians, regulators and members of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. At the pre-Delphi stage, a literature research was conducted followed by several semi-structured interviews of clinical public and private key opinion leaders. Subsequently, the preliminary outcome list was discussed in several multi-stakeholder face-to-face meetings. The Delphi survey will reduce the preliminary outcome list to essential core outcomes. After completion of the last Delphi round, a final face-to-face meeting is planned to achieve consensus about the core outcome set in AML. DISCUSSION:As part of the HARMONY Alliance, the pilot Delphi aims to define a core outcome set in AML on the basis of a multi-stakeholder consensus. Such a core outcome set will help to allow consistent comparison of future clinical trials and real-world evidence research and ensures that appropriate outcomes valued by a range of stakeholders are measured within future trials.

Project description:BackgroundClinical trials that assess the benefits and harms of an intervention do so by measuring and reporting outcomes. Inconsistent selection and diversity in the choice of outcomes make it challenging to directly compare interventions. To achieve an agreed core set of outcomes, a consensus methodology is recommended, comprising a web-based Delphi survey and a face-to-face consensus meeting. However, UK government regulations to control the pandemic prohibited plans for a face-to-face consensus meeting as part of the Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single-Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) study.ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate the modifications made by the CROSSSD study team to achieve consensus using web-based methods, but with minimal deviation from the original study protocol.MethodsThe study team worked with health care users and professionals to translate the planned face-to-face consensus meeting in a web-based format, preserving the key elements of the nominal group technique. A follow-up survey gathered evaluation feedback on the experiences of the 22 participating members. Feedback covered premeeting preparation, the process of facilitated discussions and voting, ability to contribute, and perceived fairness of the outcome.ResultsOverall, 98% (53/54) of feedback responses agreed or strongly agreed with the statements given, indicating that the web-based meeting achieved its original goals of open discussion, debate, and voting to agree with a core outcome set for single-sided deafness. Hearing-impaired participants were fully engaged, but there were some methodological challenges. For the participants, challenges included building rapport, understanding, and delivering the tasks in hand. For the study team, challenges included the need for thorough preparation and management of the unpredictability of tasks on the day.ConclusionsSharing our experiences and lessons learned can benefit future core outcome set developers. Overcoming the challenges of delivering a web-based consensus exercise in the face of the pandemic can be applied more generally to maximize inclusiveness, enhance geographical access, and reduce research costs.

Project description:PurposeHospital policies forbidding or limiting families from visiting relatives on the intensive care unit (ICU) has affected patients, families, healthcare professionals, and patient- and family-centered care (PFCC). We sought to refine evidence-informed consensus statements to guide the creation of ICU visitation policies during the current COVID-19 pandemic and future pandemics and to identify barriers and facilitators to their implementation and sustained uptake in Canadian ICUs.MethodsWe created consensus statements from 36 evidence-informed experiences (i.e., impacts on patients, families, healthcare professionals, and PFCC) and 63 evidence-informed strategies (i.e., ways to improve restricted visitation) identified during a modified Delphi process (described elsewhere). Over two half-day virtual meetings on 7 and 8 April 2021, 45 stakeholders (patients, families, researchers, clinicians, decision-makers) discussed and refined these consensus statements. Through qualitative descriptive content analysis, we evaluated the following points for 99 consensus statements: 1) their importance for improving restricted visitation policies; 2) suggested modifications to make them more applicable; and 3) facilitators and barriers to implementing these statements when creating ICU visitation policies.ResultsThrough discussion, participants identified three areas for improvement: 1) clarity, 2) accessibility, and 3) feasibility. Stakeholders identified several implementation facilitators (clear, flexible, succinct, and prioritized statements available in multiple modes), barriers (perceived lack of flexibility, lack of partnership between government and hospital, change fatigue), and ways to measure and monitor their use (e.g., family satisfaction, qualitative interviews).ConclusionsExisting guidance on policies that disallowed or restricted visitation in intensive care units were confusing, hard to operationalize, and often lacked supporting evidence. Prioritized, succinct, and clear consensus statements allowing for local adaptability are necessary to guide the creation of ICU visitation policies and to optimize PFCC.

Project description:PurposeSexual and gender minorities (SGMs) in medicine experience unique stressors in training. However, little is known about SGM specialty choice. This study examined predictors of SGM specialty choice, associations between specialty prestige and perceived SGM inclusion, and self-reported influences on specialty choice.MethodsMedical trainees and practitioners (358 SGM, 1528 non-SGM) were surveyed online. We operationalized specialty choice at the individual level as respondents' specialty of practice; at the specialty level, as a percentage of SGM respondents in each specialty. We examined specialty prestige, perceived SGM inclusivity, and medical school climate as predictors of SGM specialty choice, and we compared additional influences on specialty choice between SGM and non-SGM.ResultsThe percentage of SGM in each specialty was inversely related to specialty prestige (P?=?0.001) and positively related to perceived SGM inclusivity (P?=?0.01). Prestigious specialties were perceived as less SGM inclusive (P?<?0.001). Medical school climate did not predict specialty prestige (P?=?0.82). SGM were more likely than non-SGM to indicate that sexual and gender identity strongly influenced specialty choice (P?<?0.01). SGM most frequently rated personality fit, specialty content, role models, and work-life balance as strong influences on specialty choice. Exposure as a medical student to SGM faculty did not predict specialty prestige among SGM.ConclusionSpecialty prestige and perceived inclusivity predict SGM specialty choice. SGM diversity initiatives in prestigious specialties may be particularly effective by addressing SGM inclusion directly. Further research is needed to inform effective mentorship for SGM medical students. Exposure to SGM in medical training reduces anti-SGM bias among medical professionals, and SGM in medicine often assume leadership roles in clinical care, education, and research regarding SGM health. Supporting and promoting SGM diversity across the spectrum of medical specialties, therefore, represents a critical avenue to improve the care delivered to SGM populations and addresses the role of providers in the health disparities experienced by SGM.