Dataset Information

Association of Women Leaders with Women Program Director and Trainee Representation Across US Academic Internal Medicine.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Women are underrepresented within internal medicine (IM). Whether women leaders attract women trainees is not well explored.

Objective

To characterize leader and trainee gender across US academic IM and to investigate the association of leader gender with trainee gender.

Design

Cross-sectional study.

Participants

Leaders (chairs, chiefs, program directors (PDs)) in 2018 and trainees (residents, fellows) in 2012-2016 at medical school-affiliated IM and seven IM fellowship programs.

Exposure

Leadership (chair/chief and program director; and, for resident analyses, fellow) gender.

Main measures

Our primary outcome was percent women trainees (IM residents and, separately, subspecialty fellows). We used standard statistics to describe leadership and trainee gender. We created separate multivariable linear regressions to evaluate associations of leader gender and percent women fellows with percent women IM residents. We then created separate multivariable multilevel models (site as a random effect) to evaluate associations of leader gender with percent women subspecialty fellows.

Key results

Our cohort consisted of 940 programs. Women were 13.4% of IM chairs and <25% of chiefs in each fellowship subspecialty (cardiology: 2.6%; gastroenterology: 6.6%; pulmonary and critical care: 10.7%; nephrology: 14.4%; endocrinology: 20.6%; hematology-oncology: 23.2%; infectious diseases: 24.3%). IM PDs were 39.7% women; fellowship PDs ranged from nearly 25% (cardiology and gastroenterology) to nearly 50% (endocrinology and infectious disease) women. Having more women fellows (but not chairs or PDs) was associated with having more women residents (0.3% (95% CI: 0.2-0.5%) increase per 1% fellow increase, p<0.001); this association remained after adjustment (0.3% (0.1%, 0.4%), p=0.001). In unadjusted analyses, having a woman PD (increase of 7.7% (4.7%, 10.6%), p<0.001) or chief (increase of 8.9% (4.6%, 13.1%), p<0.001) was associated with an increase in women fellows; after adjustment, these associations were lost.

Conclusions

Women held a minority of leadership positions in academic IM. Having women leaders was not independently associated with having more women trainees.

SUBMITTER: Medepalli K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9126637 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSitting at the bedside may strengthen physician-patient communication and improve patient experience. Yet despite the potential benefits of sitting, hospital physicians, including resident physicians, may not regularly sit down while speaking with patients.ObjectiveTo examine the frequency of sitting by internal medicine residents (including first post-graduate year [PGY-1] and supervising [PGY-2/3] residents) during inpatient encounters and to assess the association between patient-reported sitting at the bedside and patients' perceptions of other physician communication behaviors. We also assessed residents' attitudes towards sitting.DesignIn-person survey of patients and email survey of internal medicine residents between August 2019 and January 2020.ParticipantsPatients admitted to general medicine teaching services and internal medicine residents at The Johns Hopkins Hospital.Main measuresPatient-reported frequency of sitting at the bedside, patients' perceptions of other communication behaviors (e.g., checking for understanding); residents' attitudes regarding sitting.Key resultsOf 334 eligible patients, 256 (76%) completed a survey. Among these 256 respondents, 198 (77%) and 166 (65%) reported recognizing the PGY-1 and PGY-2/3 on their care team, respectively, for a total of 364 completed surveys. On most surveys (203/364, 56%), patients responded that residents "never" sat. Frequent sitting at the bedside ("every single time" or "most of the time," together 48/364, 13%) was correlated with other positive behaviors, including spending enough time at the bedside, checking for understanding, and not seeming to be in a rush (p < 0.01 for all). Of 151 residents, 77 (51%) completed the resident survey; 28 of the 77 (36%) reported sitting frequently. The most commonly cited barrier to sitting was that chairs were not available (38 respondents, 49%).ConclusionsPatients perceived that residents sit infrequently. However, sitting was associated with other positive communication behaviors; this is compatible with the hypothesis that promoting sitting could improve overall patient perceptions of provider communication.

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.