Development of a Low-Cost, Easy-to-Adopt Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Program During Crisis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ankeny CJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9170120 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundHistorically in medicine, women and minorities have been underrepresented. This trend is especially significant in the anesthesiology workforce.ObjectiveThe goals of this study were to quantify the current state of diversity by race/ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation among anesthesiology residents.MethodsAn institutionally reviewed and validated survey was delivered through Qualtrics to 130 anesthesiology program directors. Topics addressed included gender identity, sexual orientation, racial and ethnic background, rationale for pursuing anesthesiology, and medical training experiences. The study was administered from February to April 2021; 135 anesthesiology residents responded to the survey.ResultsThe sample was 44.4% white (n = 60), 54.1% male (n = 73), and 83.7% (n = 113) of respondents self-reported as straight or heterosexual. Respondents indicated that role models/mentors were somewhat or very important in their desire to pursue anesthesiology (n = 85; 67.2%), 42% reported that having women/diverse faculty was somewhat or very important in their decision to pursue anesthesiology. Discrimination during the anesthesiology residency application process or as a resident ranged from 4.4% due to sexual orientation to 18.7% due to gender/gender identity and race/ethnicity.ConclusionsExperiences of discrimination based on race/ethnicity, gender, and gender identity continues to be a concern among anesthesiology trainees. Creating an environment that is inclusive and supportive of all trainees regardless of race/ethnicity, gender/gender identity, and sexual orientation is needed. Interventions and strategies to create an inclusive environment may improve diversity within anesthesiology.
| S-EPMC9081057 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionWomen and ethnic minorities are underrepresented at all levels of training and practice in urology residency programs. Equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) is a growing field of interest in medical research and business literature, especially regarding recruitment. The objective of this review was to evaluate evidence-based strategies to increase EDI to improve urology residency recruitment.MethodsA review was conducted using Ovid Medline to identify publications reporting strategies to increase women and underrepresented minorities (URM ) in healthcare fields. An evaluation of business models was incorporated. Identified strategies were sorted and ranked based on how many papers reported an increased proportion of women or URM in their program following implementation.ResultsWe assessed 234 publications from 1972-2022. Eleven underwent full review. Six additional pieces of business literature were reviewed and incorporated. The following methods were most often identified to increase diversity: mentorship and holistic application review (six publications), as well as funded internship programs and diverse selection committees (four publications). Diversity statements and application blinding were highlighted by multiple business sources but were each only reviewed in one medical publication.ConclusionsRecommendations identified include mentorship, holistic application review by diverse selection committees with bias training, and development of funded internship programs. Standardized questions and rubrics were also well-studied. Business strategies, such as publishing diversity statements and application blinding, are less studied in medical education literature. This study is unique in its inclusion of both medical and business literature and highlights concrete strategies for urology residency programs to increase EDI during recruitment.
| S-EPMC10426422 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose: The Harold Amos Medical Faculty Development Program (AMFDP), a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, seeks to support academic physicians from historically disadvantaged backgrounds and serves as a model program for promoting faculty diversity and health equity. Our objective was to determine differences in scientific productivity, promotions and retentions, and leadership attainment among faculty applicants to this national minority faculty development program. Methods: Final-round interview applicants from 2003 to 2008 were selected. Differences in publications, grants, promotions/retentions, and leadership positions through 2013 were compared between funded scholars and unfunded nonscholars. Semistructured interviews were conducted to identify factors that facilitated and hindered academic success. Results: A total of 124 applicants (76 scholars and 48 nonscholars) who participated in final-round interviews from 2003 to 2008 were eligible. Scholars and nonscholars had similar number of publications. Scholars had greater number of grants and grant dollars, but differences were not significant after accounting for AMFDP program awards. Scholars were more likely to hold leadership positions (28% vs. 10%, p=0.02), but equally likely to be promoted (67% vs. 58%, p=0.32) and retained (84% vs. 75%, p=0.21). In interviews, all participants endorsed mentoring, funding, and nonscientific education to academic success, but scholars reported greater availability of leadership opportunities consequent to AMFDP. Conclusion: There were few differences in academic productivity attributable to a national faculty diversity program. However, program participants were more likely to endorse and attain leadership positions. Academic institutions should consider facilitating leadership development of minority faculty as a means of advancing health equity research and training.
| S-EPMC6071893 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Attacks on minoritized communities and increasing awareness of the societal causes of health disparities have combined to highlight deep systemic inequities. In response, academic health centers have prioritized justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (JEDI) in their strategic goals. To have a sustained impact, JEDI efforts cannot be siloed; rather, they must be woven into the fabric of our work and systematically assessed to promote meaningful outcomes and accountability. To this end, the University of Pittsburgh's Institute for Clinical Research Education assembled a task force to create and apply a rubric to identify short and long-term JEDI goals, assess the current state of JEDI at our Institute, and make recommendations for immediate action. To ensure deep buy-in, we gathered input from diverse members of our academic community, who served on targeted subcommittees. We then applied a three-step process to ensure rapid forward progress. We emerged with concrete actions for priority focus and a plan for ongoing assessment of JEDI institutionalization. We believe our process and rubric offer a scalable and adaptable model for other institutions and departments to follow as we work together across academic medical institutions to put our justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion goals into meaningful action.
| S-EPMC10514682 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7901635 | biostudies-literature
Project description:While academia is moving forward in terms of diversifying recruitment of undergraduate and graduate students, diverse representation is still not found across the academic hierarchy. At the graduate level, new discussions are emerging around efforts to improve the experiences of women and underrepresented minorities through inclusive graduate programming. Inclusive graduate programs are that which actively center and prioritize support for diverse experiences, identities, career goals, and perspectives, from recruitment through graduation. Establishing regular and rigorous evaluation of equity and inclusion efforts and needs is a critical component of this work. This is recognized by funding agencies that increasingly require reporting on inclusion efforts; here, we suggest use of a systems change framework for these evaluations. A systems change approach emphasizes three levels: explicit change (e.g., policies), semi-explicit change (e.g., power dynamics), and implicit change (e.g., biases). We use the Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior (EEB) PhD Program at the University of Texas at Austin in an exercise to (a) identify areas of concern regarding inclusive programming voiced by graduate students, (b) categorize efforts to address these concerns, and (c) integrating and evaluating which areas of the systems change framework show the greatest progress or potential for progress. We argue this framework is particularly useful for academic systems as they are complex, composed of variable individuals, and must address diverse stakeholder needs.
| S-EPMC7593189 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In this Science, Ethics, and Society elective undergraduate course at the St. Louis College of Pharmacy, students consider topics that scientists face continuously, including human and animal subjects, science denial, treatment of scientists, who owns and funds science, personalized medicine and genetics, health disparities, and scientific integrity, all through lenses of inclusion and equity. Students read primary and secondary literature pertaining to each day's topic, upload reflections to a course management system, and engage in structured dialogue in a facilitated classroom environment. Overarching themes address how women and men and their scientific work have been treated or received differently, as well as particular challenges faced by people of color, members of the LGBTQIA+ community, and those with disabilities. This course helps students see how the culture of science has been created and sustained, how it has not encouraged equal participation, and how it could be shaped differently. Student responses to the course recognize that this approach to the scientific material is valuable and that it does not appear elsewhere in their curriculum.
| S-EPMC7148155 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionArtificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to improve efficiency and quality of care in healthcare settings. The lack of consideration for equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in the lifecycle of AI within healthcare settings may intensify social and health inequities, potentially causing harm to under-represented populations. This article describes the protocol for a scoping review of the literature relating to integration of EDI in the AI interventions within healthcare setting. The objective of the review is to evaluate what has been done on integrating EDI concepts, principles and practices in the lifecycles of AI interventions within healthcare settings. It also aims to explore which EDI concepts, principles and practices have been integrated into the design, development and implementation of AI in healthcare settings.Method and analysisThe scoping review will be guided by the six-step methodological framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley supplemented by Levac et al, and Joanna Briggs Institute methodological framework for scoping reviews. Relevant literature will be identified by searching seven electronic databases in engineering/computer science and healthcare, and searching the reference lists and citations of studies that meet the inclusion criteria. Studies on AI in any healthcare and geographical settings, that have considered aspects of EDI, published in English and French between 2005 and present will be considered. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full-text articles according to inclusion criteria. We will conduct a thematic analysis and use a narrative description to describe the work. Any disagreements will be resolved through discussion with the third reviewer. Extracted data will be summarised and analysed to address aims of the scoping review. Reporting will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. The study began in April 2022 and is expected to end in September 2023. The database initial searches resulted in 5,745 records when piloted in April 2022.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. The study will map the available literature on EDI concepts, principles and practices in AI interventions within healthcare settings, highlight the significance of this context, and offer insights into the best practices for incorporating EDI into AI-based solutions in healthcare settings. The results will be disseminated through open-access peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, social media and 2-day workshops with relevant stakeholders.
| S-EPMC10533699 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAchieving diversity, inclusion, and gender equity remains an elusive challenge for many institutions worldwide and is understudied in Canadian academic health science centres.MethodsMcMaster University's Department of Medicine undertook surveys and analyses to determine whether there was inequity in leadership positions and salaries, or unprofessional behaviour within the department. Measures of academic productivity in relation to gender for both educators and researchers were analyzed. The department began shifting policies to foster greater gender diversity and inclusion. A revision of the leadership selection process, incorporating tenets of equity and a new game theory-based strategy called Diversitive Agreement Versus Nash Equilibrium (DAvNE) was evaluated.ResultsThe department's survey revealed underrepresentation of women and people of colour in leadership positions, with perceived barriers to their promotion. Both women and people of colour reported experiencing unprofessional behaviour directed toward them. A gender gap in base salary was observed, with female full professors being paid less. No difference in academic productivity was seen between male and female educators or researchers. The leadership competitions conducted under new selection processes emphasizing diversity resulted in 66% of participating women securing a leadership position, in comparison to 25% of participating men. People of colour made up 27% of members participating in these leadership competitions, but none was successful in obtaining a position.ConclusionsDiversity and inclusion disparities in the Department of Medicine at McMaster University indicate a need for further efforts and innovation to bring about greater gender and racial equity.
| S-EPMC8712627 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeRestorative Justice (RJ) as a practice and mindset is growing within academic medicine and health care. The authors aim to categorize the extent to which RJ training and practices have been researched, explored, and applied within health care, medicine, and academic contexts.MethodsIn July 2021, the authors conducted a scoping literature review, searching four databases for peer-reviewed articles and book chapters discussing RJ. Authors also used bibliography searches and personal knowledge to add relevant work. Reviewers independently screened article titles and abstracts, assessing the full texts of potentially eligible articles with inclusion and exclusion criteria. From each included article, authors extracted the publication year, first author's country of origin, specific screening criteria met, and the depth with which it discussed RJ.ResultsFrom 599 articles screened, 39 articles, and books were included (published 2001-2021). Twenty-five (64%) articles discussed RJ theory with few describing application practices with substantial depth. Ten (26%) articles only referenced the term "restorative justice" and seven (18%) discussed legal applications in health care. Fifty-four percent were from outside the United States. Articles tended to describe RJ uses to address harm and often missed the opportunity to explore RJ's capacity to proactively build community and culture that helps prevent harm.ConclusionsRJ in health care is a rapidly expanding field that offers a framework capable of building stronger communities, authentically preventing and responding to harm, inviting radical inclusion of diverse participants to build shared understanding and culture, and ameliorate some of the most toxic and unproductive hierarchical practices in academics and medicine. Most literature calls to RJ for help to respond to harm, although there are very few well-designed and evaluated implementations. Investment in RJ practices holds significant promise to steer our historically hierarchical, "othering" and imperfect systems to align with values of justice (vs. punishment), equity, diversity, and inclusion.
| S-EPMC10541936 | biostudies-literature