scholarly journals Gender Differences in Academic Medicine

2018 ◽  
Vol 93 (11) ◽  
pp. 1694-1699 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phyllis L. Carr ◽  
Anita Raj ◽  
Samantha E. Kaplan ◽  
Norma Terrin ◽  
Janis L. Breeze ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 535-542 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krisda H. Chaiyachati ◽  
Joshua M. Liao ◽  
Gary E. Weissman ◽  
Rebecca A. Hubbard ◽  
Anna U. Morgan ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Background Generalists who pursue research-intensive fellowships develop research skills and mentor-mentee relationships. Whether gender disparities in retention and promotion exist among this research-trained cohort is understudied. Objective We measured whether disparities exist among graduates of research-intensive fellowships and how mentorship influences them. Methods We surveyed generalists (internal medicine, pediatrics, family medicine, combined internal medicine–pediatrics) between July and August 2016 who graduated from research-intensive fellowships. Generalists (“mentees”) were asked whether they remained or were promoted, and to name up to 10 influential mentors during or within 5 years of fellowship. Multivariable logistic regression estimated associations between mentee gender and retention and promotion. Next, we separately included 3 network characteristics: (1) mentee degrees (number of mentors reported per mentee); (2) mean mentor betweenness centrality (importance of each mentor within the network); and (3) largest community membership (mentee status in the largest interconnected mentor-mentee group within the network). All models adjusted for generalists' race, specialty, fellowship institution, and publications. Results One hundred sixty-two graduates (51%) representing 19 institutions responded. In adjusted analyses, compared to men, women were as likely to remain in academic medicine (odds ratio [OR] 1.88; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72–4.89; P = .20), but less likely to be promoted within 5 years of fellowship (OR 0.26; 95% CI 0.09–0.80; P = .018). Inclusion of network measures did not alter these associations. Conclusions Despite remaining in academic medicine as frequently as their male counterparts, fellowship-trained women were promoted less often. Features of mentors, measured using network analysis, may not explain these observed differences.


Author(s):  
Lona Mody ◽  
Kent A Griffith ◽  
Rochelle D. Jones ◽  
Abigail Stewart ◽  
Peter A. Ubel ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 100 (1) ◽  
pp. 297-306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael T. Henderson ◽  
Natalia Fijalkowski ◽  
Sean K. Wang ◽  
Mitch Maltenfort ◽  
Luo Luo Zheng ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 140-154
Author(s):  
Monica Biernat ◽  
Molly Carnes ◽  
Amarette Filut ◽  
Anna Kaatz

Grant-writing and grant-getting are key to success in many academic disciplines, but research points to gender gaps in both, especially as careers progress. Using a sample of National Institutes of Health (NIH) K-Awardees—Principal Investigators of Mentored Career Development Awards—we examined gender and race effects in response to imagined negative grant reviews that emphasized either promise or inadequacy. Women translated both forms of feedback into worse NIH priority scores than did men and showed reduced motivation to reapply for funding following the review highlighting inadequacy. Translation of feedback mediated the effects of gender on motivation, changing one’s research focus, and advice-seeking. Race effects were less consistent, and race did not moderate effects of gender. We suggest that gender bias in grant reviews (i.e., greater likelihood of highlighting inadequacy in reviews of women’s grants), along with gender differences in responsiveness to feedback, may contribute to women’s underrepresentation in academic medicine.


2022 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e2143139
Author(s):  
Sara J. Cromer ◽  
Kristin M. D’Silva ◽  
Neelam A. Phadke ◽  
Emma Lord ◽  
Nancy A. Rigotti ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-31
Author(s):  
C ZUGCK ◽  
A FLUEGEL ◽  
L FRANKENSTEIN ◽  
M NELLES ◽  
M HAASS ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document