US Medical School Faculty Research Articles

Sex, Race, and Ethnicity of Faculty and Department Chairs in Orthopaedic Surgery and Comparable Fields: 2015 to 2022.

The field of orthopaedic surgery has disproportionately low numbers of women and underrepresented in medicine (URM) groups. Although the representation of women and URM in orthopaedics has increased over the past several years, the growth has not kept up with other surgical specialties. This is a retrospective review of data presented by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) regarding US medical school faculty and department chair makeup in 2018 to 2022 and 2015 data from the AAMC Group on Women in Medicine and Sciences reports. Data regarding the sex and race/ethnicity of faculty and department chairs in orthopaedic surgery, a comparable surgical specialty (otolaryngology), surgery, and all medical fields were assessed. Otolaryngology was chosen as a comparable specialty because orthopaedic surgery and otolaryngology are the only two surgical specialties classified within the AAMC faculty report, separate from any medical counterpart. Among orthopaedic surgery, otolaryngology, surgery, and all clinical sciences, the representation of women and individuals from URM groups increased between 2015 and 2022. During this time, orthopaedic surgery had the lowest growth rate of the four groups in female faculty (+0.63%/year), URM faculty (+0.32%/year), and URM department chairs (+0.11%/year). However, orthopaedic surgery did have an increase in female department chairs (0.96%/year to 7% in 2022), similar to increases seen in surgery and all clinical sciences. The increase in representation in female and URM faculty and department chairs in orthopaedic surgery lags behind comparable fields and medicine as a whole. In addition, orthopaedic surgery had the lowest representation of female and URM faculty in 2015 and 2022. Improving the representation of female and URM orthopaedic faculty and department chairs is critical because this may encourage more diverse medical students to consider pursuing a career in the field.

A Report of Salaries of Academic Cardiothoracic Surgeons Based on Race and Ethnicity

BackgroundDiversity in the physician workforce improves patient care, physician well-being, and innovation. Workforce diversity is dependent on fair compensation that is unbiased by race or ethnicity. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a disparity of representation and salary on the basis of race or ethnicity exists in academic cardiothoracic surgery. MethodsStudy investigators performed a cross-sectional analysis of data collected by the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) faculty data for US medical school faculty 2021 and 2022. Salary data were not available if an academic rank and race or ethnicity had fewer than 6 cardiothoracic surgeons. Study investigators performed a descriptive analysis of the number of faculty and compared median and mean salaries according to academic rank using a paired t test. ResultsOf the 758 academic cardiothoracic surgeons, 64.9% were White, 25.2% were Asian, 3.3% were Black or African American, 4.9% were Hispanic or Latino, and 1.7% were of other race or ethnicity. Cardiothoracic surgeons at the academic rank of professor were 74.6% White, 17.7% Asian, 3.4% Black or African American, 3.9% Hispanic or Latino, and 0.4% other races. Asian faculty earned 89% to 171%, Black or African American faculty earned 59% to 94%, and Hispanic or Latino faculty earned 84% to 165% of the median salary earned by White faculty. Black or African American faculty consistently and significantly (P = .002) earned lower median salaries compared with White faculty at each academic rank measured. ConclusionsThe academic cardiothoracic surgery workforce lacks diversity, especially at the highest academic ranks. Salary equity among races or ethnicities is complex, requiring additional study. However, Black or African American cardiothoracic surgeons experience low representation and salary disparity at every academic rank measured.

Ophthalmology Faculty Diversity Trends in the US

Enhancing the diversity of ophthalmologists can potentially contribute to diminishing disparities in eye care. To investigate longitudinal trends in the representation of individuals underrepresented in medicine (URiM) and women among ophthalmology faculty compared with other specialties and to assess disparities between ophthalmology faculty demographic characteristics and the US population. In this cross-sectional study, a comprehensive analysis of Association of American Medical Colleges Faculty Roster data between 2000 and 2021 was conducted, using data from the US Medical School Faculty report on 56 438 ophthalmology faculty members. The data set was used to differentiate ophthalmology faculty members by gender, rank, and designation as a URiM individual. Outcome measures included changes in URiM and non-URiM faculty proportions, faculty rank, gender, department chair positions, and the US population between 2000 and 2021. A total of 56 438 ophthalmology faculty members (37 511 men [66.5%]) were included in the study. The number of ophthalmology faculty increased from 1820 in 2000 to 3151 in 2021. Across all years, URiM female faculty represented 3.1% of ophthalmologists (1733 of 56 438), while URiM men accounted for 3.5% (1983 of 56 438). Overall, non-URiM men constituted 63.0% of ophthalmologists (35 528 of 56 438), and non-URiM women accounted for 30.5% (17 194 of 56 438). The proportion of URiM male faculty remained stable from 2000 to 2021 (63 of 1820 [3.5%] vs 104 of 3151 [3.3%]), with a small increase in URiM women faculty at junior faculty positions (2000, 40 of 1820 [2.2%]; 2021, 129 of 3151 [4.1%]; difference, 1.9% [95% CI, 0.9%-2.9%]). Proportions of non-URiM men decreased from 71.2% (1295 of 1820) in 2000 to 55.3% (1743 of 3151) in 2021 (difference, 15.8% [95% CI, 13.1%-18.6%]) and proportions of non-URiM women increased from 23.2% (422 of 1820) in 2000 to 37.3% (1175 of 3151) in 2021 (difference, 14.1% [95% CI, 11.5%-16.7%]). In terms of faculty rank, there were increases in representation of women from 2000 to 2021 at assistant professor (from 11.2% [203 of 1819] to 19.7% [622 of 3165]; difference, 8.5% [95% CI, 6.5%-10.5%]), associate professor (from 4.6% [83 of 1819] to 8.6% [271 of 3165]; difference, 4.0% [95% CI, 2.6%-5.4%]), and professor levels (from 2.8% [51 of 1819] to 7.1% [223 of 3165]; difference, 4.3% [95% CI, 3.9%-6.1%]). URiM representation remained stable at most ranks. Compared with other specialties, ophthalmology had among the lowest percentage change in URiM faculty. The expansion of ophthalmology's URiM faculty representation was less than one-third that of the diverse US population. These findings highlight substantial growth in ophthalmology faculty and an increase in women's representation across several faculty ranks. However, URiM representation has remained largely unchanged, despite an increase at the associate professor level. This finding emphasizes the need for continued efforts to enhance diversity in academic ophthalmology.

Trends of Academic Faculty Identifying as Hispanic at US Medical Schools, 1990-2021.

According to recent census data, Hispanic and Latino populations comprise the largest minority group in the United States. Despite ongoing efforts for improved diversity, equity, and inclusion, Hispanics remain underrepresented in medicine (UIM). In addition to well-established benefits to patient care and health systems, physician diversity and increased representation in academic faculty positively impact the recruitment of trainees from UIM backgrounds. Disproportionate representation (as compared to increases of certain underrepresented groups in the US population) has direct implications for recruitment of UIM trainees to residency programs. To examine the number of full-time US medical school faculty physicians who self-identify as Hispanic in light of the increasing Hispanic population in the United States. We analyzed data from the Association of American Medical Colleges from 1990 to 2021, looking at those academic faculty who were classified as Hispanic, Latino, of Spanish Origin, or of Multiple Race-Hispanic. We used descriptive statistics and visualizations to illustrate the level of representation of Hispanic faculty by sex, rank, and clinical specialty over time. Overall, the proportion of faculty studied who identified as Hispanic increased from 3.1% (1990) to 6.01% (2021). Moreover, while the proportion of female Hispanic academic faculty increased, there remains a lag between females versus males. Our analysis shows that the number of full-time US medical school faculty who self-identify as Hispanic has not increased, though the population of Hispanics in the United States has increased.

Institutional Variability in Representation of Women and Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups Among Medical School Faculty

Bolstering the ranks of women and underrepresented groups in medicine (URM) among medical faculty can help address ongoing health care disparities and therefore constitutes a critical public health need. There are increasing proportions of URM faculty, but comparisons of these changes with shifts in regional populations are lacking. To quantify the representation of women and URM and assess changes and variability in representation by individual US medical schools. This retrospective cross-sectional study assessed US medical school faculty rosters for women and URM, including American Indian and Alaska Native, Black, Hispanic, and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander faculty. US allopathic medical schools participating in the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Faculty Administrative Management Online User System from 1990 to 2019 (updated December 31 for each year), were included. Faculty data were analyzed from yearly cross-sections updated as of December 31 for each year from 1990 to 2019. For census data, decennial census data were used for years 1990, 2000, and 2010. Intercensal estimates were used for all other years from 1990 to 2019. Trends and variability in representation quotient (RQ), defined as representation of a group within an institution's faculty compared to its respective US county. There were 121 AAMC member institutions (72 076 faculty) in 1990, which increased to 144 institutions (184 577 faculty) in 2019. The median RQ of women faculty increased from 0.42 (IQR, 0.37-0.46) to 0.80 (IQR, 0.74-0.89) (slope, +1.4% per year; P < .001). The median RQ of Black faculty increased from 0.10 (IQR, 0.06-0.22) to 0.22 (IQR, 0.14-0.41) (slope, +0.5% per year; P < .001), but remained low. In contrast, the median RQ of Hispanic faculty decreased from 0.44 (IQR, 0.19-1.22) to 0.34 (IQR, 0.23-0.62) (slope, -1.7% per year; P < .001) between 1990 and 2019. Absolute total change in RQ of URM showed an increase; however, the 30-year slope did not differ from zero (+0.1% per year; P = .052). Although RQ of women faculty increased for most institutions (127 [88.2%]), large variability in URM faculty trends were observed (57 institutions [39.6%] with increased RQ and 10 institutions [6.9%] with decreased RQ). Nearly one-quarter of institutions shifted from the top to bottom 50th percentile institutional ranking by URM RQ with county vs national comparisons. The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that representation of women in academic medicine improved with time, while URM overall experienced only modest increases with wide variability across institutions. Among URM, the Hispanic population has lost representational ground. County-based population comparisons provide new insights into institutional variation in representation among medical school faculty.

A Call for Diversity: Women, Professional Development, and Work Experience in Cardiothoracic Anesthesiology

DESPITE THE ACHIEVEMENT of parity in medical school matriculation decades ago, 1 Association of American Medical Colleges. AAMC chart 5: Graduates of US medical schools by sex, academic years 1980-1981 through 2018-2019. Available at: https://www.aamc.org/media/9631/download?attachment. Accessed December 10, 2020. Google Scholar female physicians across specialties continue to face barriers in their professional development. Women in cardiothoracic anesthesiology (CTA) are a growing and increasingly vocal minority in a medical subspecialty that has been dominated by men throughout history. Approximately 36% of United States medical school faculty anesthesiologists are women, 2 Association of American Medical Colleges. AAMC table 13: US medical school faculty by gender, rank, and department, 2019. Available at: https://www.aamc.org/media/8441/download?attachment. Accessed September 27, 2022. Google Scholar and women account for 29% of cardiothoracic anesthesiologists. 3 Capdeville M. If all the world's a stage, then where's our microphone?. J Cardiothor Vasc Anes. 2020; 34: 1810-1814 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (0) Google Scholar These latter women face unique challenges in the often-stressful and dynamic environment of the cardiothoracic operating room. These challenges have led to the formation of organizations whose mission is to provide support and guidance in the professional lives of female cardiac anesthesiologists.

National Institutes of Health Diversity Supplement Awards by Medical School.

Increasing medical school faculty diversity is an urgent priority. National Institutes of Health (NIH) diversity supplements, which provide funding and career development opportunities to individuals underrepresented in research, are an important mechanism to increase faculty diversity. Analyze diversity supplement utilization by medical schools. Retrospective cohort study. All R01 grant-associated diversity supplements awarded to medical schools from 2005 to 2020. Diversity supplements were identified using the publicly available NIH RePORTER database. Main measures were the number of R01-associated diversity supplements awarded to medical schools each year by medical schoolNIH funding status and the number of R01-associated diversity supplements awarded to individual medical schools in the NIH top 40 by funding status. We also examined the percentage of R01 grants with an associated diversity supplement by NIH funding status and individual medical school in the NIH top 40. From 2005 to 2020, US medical school faculty received 1389 R01-associated diversity supplements. The number of diversity supplements awarded grew from 2012 to 2020, from ten to 187 for top 40 schools, and from seven to 83 for non-top 40 schools. The annual growth rate for diversity supplement awards at NIH top 40 schools (44.2%) was not significantly different than the annual growth rate among non-top 40 schools (36.2%; p = 0.68). From 2005 to 2020, the highest number of diversity supplements that an individual medical school received was 56 and the lowest number was four (mean = 24.6, SD = 11.7). The highest percentage of R01 grants with an associated diversity supplement received by a school was 4.5% and the lowest percentage was 0.79% (mean = 2.3%, SD = 0.98). Medical schools may be missing an opportunity to address the continuing shortage of individuals historically underrepresented in biomedical science and should consider additional mechanisms to enhance diversity supplement utilization.

Representation of American Indian and Alaska Native Individuals in Academic Medical Training

Identifying gaps in inclusivity of Indigenous individuals is key to diversifying academic medical programs, increasing American Indian and Alaska Native representation, and improving disparate morbidity and mortality outcomes in American Indian and Alaska Native populations. To examine representation of American Indian and Alaska Native individuals at different stages in the 2018-2019 academic medical training continuum and trends (2011-2020) of American Indian and Alaska Native representation in residency specialties. A cross-sectional, population-based analysis was conducted using self-reported race and ethnicity data on trainees from the Association of American Medical Colleges (2018), the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (2011-2018), and the US Census (2018). Data were analyzed between February 18, 2020, and March 4, 2021. Enrolled trainees at specific stages of medical training. The primary outcome was the odds of representation of American Indian and Alaska Native individuals at successive academic medical stages in 2018-2019 compared with White individuals. Secondary outcomes comprised specialty-specific proportions of American Indian and Alaska Native residents from 2011 to 2020 and medical specialty-specific proportions of American Indian and Alaska Native physicians in 2018. Fisher exact tests were performed to calculate the odds of American Indian and Alaska Native representation at successive stages of medical training. Simple linear regressions were performed to assess trends across residency specialties. The study data contained a total of 238 974 607 White and American Indian and Alaska Native US citizens, 24 795 US medical school applicants, 11 242 US medical school acceptees, 10 822 US medical school matriculants, 10 917 US medical school graduates, 59 635 residents, 518 874 active physicians, and 113 168 US medical school faculty. American Indian and Alaska Native individuals had a 63% lower odds of applying to medical school (odds ratio [OR], 0.37; 95% CI, 0.31-0.45) and 48% lower odds of holding a full-time faculty position (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.44-0.62) compared with their White counterparts, yet had 54% higher odds of working in a residency specialty deemed as a priority by the Indian Health Service (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.09-2.16). Of the 33 physician specialties analyzed, family medicine (0.55%) and pain medicine (0.46%) had more than an average proportion (0.41%) of American Indian and Alaska Native physicians compared with their representation across all specialties. This cross-sectional study noted 2 distinct stages in medical training with significantly lower representation of American Indian and Alaska Native compared with White individuals. An actionable framework to guide academic medical institutions on their Indigenous diversification and inclusivity efforts is proposed.

An Approach to Faculty Development for Underrepresented Minorities in Medicine.

The diversity of the US physician workforce lags significantly behind the population, and the disparities in academic medicine are even greater, with underrepresented in medicine (URM) physicians accounting for only 6.8% of all US medical school faculty. We describe a "for URM by URM" pilot approach to faculty development for junior URM Family Medicine physicians that targets unique challenges faced by URM faculty. A year-long fellowship was created for junior URM academic clinician faculty with funding through the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine Project Fund. Seven junior faculty applied and were accepted to participate in the fellowship, which included conference calls and an in-person workshop covering topics related to writing and career advancement. The workshop included a mix of prepared programming on how to move from idea to project to manuscript, as well as time for spontaneous mentorship and manuscript collaboration. Key themes that emerged included how to address the high cost of the minority tax, the need for individual passion as a pathway to success, and how to overcome imposter syndrome as a hindrance to writing. The "for URM by URM" approach for faculty development to promote writing skills and scholarship for junior URM Family Medicine physicians can address challenges faced by URM faculty. By using a framework that includes the mentors' lived experiences and creates a psychological safe space, we can address concerns often overlooked in traditional skills-based faculty development programs.

Proportions of Faculty Self-identifying as Black or African American at US Medical Schools, 1990-2020

This study examines differences in proportions of US medical school faculty who self-identified as Black or African American between 1990 and 2020 based on data from the Association of American Medical Colleges Faculty Roster.

Midcareer Medical School Research Faculty Perspectives on Vitality and Professionalism During the COVID-19 Pandemic

As medical faculty have central roles during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to study the pandemic's association with the vitality and careers of medical school faculty. To examine how the COVID-19 pandemic affected midcareer research faculty in academic medicine. This qualitative study included medical school faculty who participated in the C-Change Mentoring and Leadership Institute. All US medical school faculty recipients of recent National Institutes of Health (NIH) RO1, RO1-equivalent, and K awards were invited to apply to the institute. The 99 applicants who met inclusion criteria were stratified by degree (MD or MD/PhD vs PhD), gender, and race/ethnicity. Enrollment was offered to applicants randomly selected for 40 spots, demographically balanced by sex, underrepresented in medicine minority (URMM) status, and degree. In April 2020, an inquiry was emailed to faculty enrolled in the institute requesting responses to questions about meaning in work, career choice, and values. A qualitative analysis of narrative data responses, using grounded theory, was undertaken to determine key themes. This study is part of a NIH-funded randomized trial to test the efficacy of a group peer mentoring course for midcareer faculty and study the course's mechanisms of action. Key themes in data. Of 40 enrolled participants, 39 responded to the inquiry, for a response rate of 97%. The analytic sample included 39 faculty members; 19 (47%) were women, 20 (53%) identified as URMM, and 20 (53%) had an MD or MD with PhD vs 19 (47%) with PhD degrees. Key themes in the data that emerged describing faculty lived experience of the pandemic included increased meaningfulness of work; professionalism and moral responsibility; enhanced relationships with colleagues; reassertion of career choice; disrupted research; impact on clinical work; attention to health disparities, social justice and advocacy; increased family responsibilities; psychological stress; and focus on leadership. During the pandemic, diverse PhD and physician investigators reported increased meaningfulness in work and professionalism and enhanced relationships, all intrinsic motivators associated with vitality. Working during the pandemic appears to have produced intrinsic rewards positively associated with vitality, in addition to adverse mental health effects. These findings have implications for combatting burnout and retaining investigators in the future.

Representation of Women on Journal Editorial Boards Affiliated with the Association of American Medical College's Council of Faculty and Academic Societies.

Background: The Council of Faculty and Academic Societies (CFAS) comprises representatives from medical schools and professional societies who guide the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). Given the AAMC's stated mission to improve diversity and inclusion, we used gender-related representation on journal editorial boards as a proxy for evaluating CFAS member societies' commitments to equity. Methods: From screenshots of journal mastheads (n = 44) collected June 3-6, 2019, individuals were categorized by editorial position. Outcome measures included numbers of men and women among faculty, deans, department chairs, physicians, and nonphysicians on editorial boards. Outcomes were compared with 2018 AAMC and US Bureau of Labor Statistics workforce data. Results: Overall, the proportion of women among journal editors was 29.0% (364 of 1,255), range 0%-53.3%. This proportion was significantly less than the proportion of women among US medical school faculty and medical scientists. The lowest percentages of women were found among journals' section or topic editors (19.2%) and editors-in-chief (20.4%). Men were significantly more likely to be a professor or department chair and women were significantly more likely to be an associate professor or assistant professor, suggesting a bidirectional process between rank and editorial position that may inhibit the advancement of academic women, particularly women physicians. Conclusions: This study revealed disparities in the equitable representation of women among CFAS member-affiliated journal editors. Because CFAS member societies participate in a mutually beneficial relationship with the AAMC, they should strive to attain the equity goals set forth by the AAMC.

Trends in Internal Medicine Faculty by Sex and Race/Ethnicity, 1980-2018

Increasing diversity in the physician workforce is a fulcrum for reducing health disparities. Efforts to increase the diversity in the internal medicine (IM) workforce may improve health equity among an increasingly diverse population with increasing prevalence of chronic disease. To assess diversity trends in the academic IM workforce and evaluate how well these trends reflected medical student diversity and the changing demographic composition of the general population. This secondary analysis of a cross-sectional study analyzed data from January 1, 1980, to December 31, 2018, from the Association of American Medical Colleges Faculty Roster and Applicant Matriculant File, which capture full-time US medical school faculty and matriculants, respectively, and population data through 2017 from the US Census Bureau. The study calculated the proportions of women and individuals from racial/ethnic groups that are traditionally underrepresented in medicine (URM) among IM faculty and faculty in all other clinical departments. These data were compared with the proportions of female and URM matriculants in US medical schools and the proportions of women and individuals from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups in the population. The analysis was stratified by sex, race/ethnicity, and intersections of sex and race/ethnicity. From 1980 to 2018, the absolute number of full-time IM faculty increased from 10 964 to 42 547. Although IM was the department classification with the most women faculty, in 2018 it continued to have a lower proportion of women (n = 17 165 [40.3%]) compared with all other clinical departments (n = 48 936 [43.2%]). Among IM faculty, the percentage of URM faculty members more than doubled during the study period (from 4.1% to 9.7%) but still made up only a small portion of faculty members. The percentage of female matriculants among medical school matriculants increased steadily (from 28.7% in 1980 to 51.6% in 2018) and was nearly identical to their population representation in 2017 (50.7% compared with 50.8%). Although the percentage of URM matriculants had nearly doubled since 1980 (from 11.3% to 18.1%), it still lagged far behind the proportion of individuals in the US population who are members of underrepresented racial/ethnic groups (18.1% vs 31.5% in 2017). This cross-sectional study found that progress has been made in diversifying academic IM faculty; however, it does not yet reflect the diversity of medical students or the US population. Continued efforts to increase the diversity of the academic IM workforce are needed.

US Trainee and Faculty Perspectives on Exposure to Nuclear Medicine/Molecular Imaging During Medical School

(1) To identify key factors, especially during medical school, driving trainees to pursue nuclear medicine/molecular imaging (NM/MI) as a career. (2) To understand the current state of medical student exposure to NM/MI. We disseminated 2 surveys by email. The first surveyed NM/MI trainees about motivations for choosing the specialty. The second survey was sent to US medical school faculty responsible for student education and NM/MI residency program directors to gauge the current state of NM/MI didactics at their institution. Seventy-eight trainees and 44 faculty responded. Most trainees reported becoming first interested in NM/MI after medical school (80%, 56/70). Trainees reported little NM/MI exposure during medical school (65%, 49/75), despite faculty reporting that they provide NM/MI didactics (76%, 32/42, P = 0.005). Imaging clerkships, research, and mentorship experiences were important influences for trainee's specialty choice. Most respondents thought that NM/MI should be pursued in conjunction with Diagnostic Radiology training (trainees 67%, 45/69; faculty 80%, 32/40). Survey results highlight the need to improve medical student engagement in NM/MI. It also identified factors that motivate current NM/MI trainees to enter the field and highlight a potential opportunity to increase medical student exposure to NM/MI. Targets for curricular and extra-curricular development that may increase effective NM/MI exposure during medical school were identified to guide future outreach efforts.

Sex differences in academic rank in allergy/immunology

Female physicians are significantly less likely than male physicians to be full professors, even after accounting for age, experience, specialty, and measures of research and clinical productivity. We sought to evaluate sex differences in academic rank in the allergy and immunology workforce. We used a cross-sectional physician data set containing the allergist's sex, age, years since residency, faculty appointment, authored publications, National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, clinical trial investigation, and Medicare reimbursement to investigate sex differences in the academic allergy and immunology workforce using multilevel logistic regression models. Among 507 academic allergists (9.3% of practicing US allergists in 2014), 323 (63.7%) were men, and 184 (36.3%) were women. Female allergists were younger (47.9 vs 56.9years, P<.001), had fewer total (12.5 vs 28.7, P<.001) and first/last author (8.0 vs 21.5, P<.001) average publications, were less likely to have NIH funding (13.0% vs 23.5%, P=.004), were less frequently a clinical trial investigator (10.3% vs 16.1%, P=.07), and generated less average annual Medicare revenue ($44,000 vs $23,000, P=.10). Of 152 (30.0%) full professors, 126 (82.9%) were male, and 26 (17.0%) were female. After multivariable adjustment, rates of full professorship among female and male allergists were not significantly different (absolute adjusted difference for female vs male allergists, 6.0%; 95% CI, -8.3% to 20.2%). Among allergists with US medical school faculty appointments, men and women were similarly likely to be full professors after accounting for factors influencing promotion. Underlying differences in research productivity and NIH funding not explained by age differences alone warrant additional investigation.

Concerning trends in allopathic medical school faculty rank for Indigenous people: 2014–2016

ABSTRACTBackground: Trends in faculty rank according to racial and ethnic composition have not been reviewed in over a decade.Objective: To study trends in faculty rank according to racial and ethnicity with a specific focus on Indigenous faculty, which has been understudied.Methods: Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges’ Faculty Administrative Management Online User System was used to study trends in race/ethnicity faculty composition and rank between 2014 and 2016, which included information on 481,753 faculty members from 141 US allopathic medical schools.Results: The majority of medical school faculty were White, 62.4% (n = 300,642). Asian composition represented 14.7% (n = 70,647). Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish Origin; Multiple Race-Hispanic; Multiple Race-Non-Hispanic; and Black/African American faculty represented 2.2%, 2.3%, 3.0%, and 3.0%, respectively. Indigenous faculty members, defined as American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (NHPI), represented the smallest percentage of faculty at 0.11% and 0.18%, respectively. White faculty predominated the full professor rank at 27.5% in 2016 with a slight decrease between 2014 and 2016. Indigenous faculty represented the lowest percent of full professor faculty at 5.2% in 2016 for AIAN faculty and a decline from 4.6% to 1.6% between 2014 and 2016 for NHPI faculty (p < 0.001).Conclusions: While US medical school faculty are becoming more racially and ethnically diverse, representation of AIAN faculty is not improving and is decreasing significantly among NHPI faculty. Little progress has been made in eliminating health disparities among Indigenous people. Diversifying the medical workforce could better meet the needs of communities that historically and currently experience a disproportionate disease burden.

Academic Women Faculty: Are They Finding the Mentoring They Need?

Although women comprise an increasing proportion of US medical school faculty, they are underrepresented at higher ranks. Lack of effective mentoring may contribute to this disparity. We examined the role of academic rank, research focus, parenting, and part-time work on mentoring importance, needs, and gaps. In 2009, women faculty members of Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Dental Medicine were invited by e-mail to participate in a 28-item structured questionnaire. Descriptive statistics and adjusted logistic regressions were used to identify relevant themes. Of the 1179 women faculty who responded, 54% had a mentor, and 72% without a mentor desired mentoring. The most important mentor characteristic identified was availability. Respondents endorsed most mentoring areas as important (range 51%-99%); 52% of respondents identified mentoring gaps (area important and unmet) in developing and achieving career goals and negotiation skills. Interest in mentorship for skills needed for advancement (research and lecturing skills and getting national recognition) was significantly associated with lower rank. Assistant professors were most likely to identify mentoring related to writing and publishing articles, whereas associate professors identified program development/strategic planning as important. Faculty who are parents identified gaps in finding collaborators and balancing work and family life. This survey identified a desire for both comprehensive and targeted mentoring to address gaps that varied by faculty rank, research focus, parenting, and work time status. Strategies to enhance mentoring should address career stages and include a structured framework for assessing mentoring gaps.

Disentangling effort and performance: a renewed look at gender differences in commercializing medical school research

Recently, questions about gender gaps in science have extended to academic technology transfer. Using systematic data on US medical school faculty, we capture both behavior and performance, examining the hypothesis that women are less likely than men to commercialize their research findings. We pooled faculty invention data from ten departments in three Academic Health Centers from 1991 to 1998—a period when pat- enting had become prevalent and other researchers note that a gender gap was pronounced. Rather than focusing on patenting, we capture the first step in the commercialization process, as well as the subsequent successful licensing of faculty inventions to a company. We find no significant gender differences in the likelihood of reporting inventions or successfully commercializing them. We do find differences in the number of inventions reported, however, with women disclosing fewer inventions than their male counterparts. Our results demonstrate that gender effects are highly conditioned by employment context and resources. We attribute differences in our findings with regards to gender to the use of outcome measures that capture both behavior and performance, and the inclusion of a more extensive set of control variables.

Contributions of International Medical Graduates to US Biomedical Research

International medical graduates (IMGs) constitute an appreciable fraction of full-time faculty at US medical schools and of principal investigators (PIs) on National Institutes of Health (NIH) research project grants. Information...

Racial and ethnic disparities in faculty promotion in academic medicine.

Previous studies have suggested that minority medical school faculty are at a disadvantage in promotion opportunities compared with white faculty. To compare promotion rates of minority and white medical school faculty in the United States. Analysis of data from the Association of American Medical Colleges' Faculty Roster System, the official data system for tracking US medical school faculty. A total of 50,145 full-time US medical school faculty who became assistant professors or associate professors between 1980 and 1989. Faculty of historically black and Puerto Rican medical schools were excluded. Attainment of associate or full professorship among assistant professors and full professorship among associate professors by 1997, among white, Asian or Pacific Islander (API), underrepresented minority (URM; including black, Mexican American, Puerto Rican, Native American, and Native Alaskan), and other Hispanic faculty. By 1997, 46% of white assistant professors (13,479/28,953) had been promoted, whereas 37% of API (1123/2997; P<.001), 30% of URM (311/1053, P<.001), and 43% of other Hispanic assistant professors (256/598; P =.07) had been promoted. Similarly, by 1997, 50% of white associate professors (7234/14,559) had been promoted, whereas 44% of API (629/1419; P<.001), 36% of URM (101/280; P<.001), and 43% of other Hispanic (122/286; P =.02) associate professors had been promoted. Racial/ethnic disparities in promotion were evident among tenure and nontenure faculty and among faculty who received and did not receive National Institutes of Health research awards. After adjusting for cohort, sex, tenure status, degree, department, medical school type, and receipt of NIH awards, URM faculty remained less likely to be promoted compared with white faculty (relative risk [RR], 0.68 [99% confidence interval CI, 0.59-0.77] for assistant professors and 0.81 [99% CI, 0.65-0.99] for associate professors). API assistant professors also were less likely to be promoted (RR, 0.91 [99% CI, 0.84-0.98]), whereas API associate professors and other Hispanic assistant and associate professors were promoted at comparable rates. Our data indicate that minority faculty are promoted at lower rates compared with white faculty. JAMA. 2000;284:1085-1092