Objective Despite known benefits of diversity, certain racial/ethnic groups remain underrepresented in academic pediatrics. Little research exists regarding unconscious racial attitudes among pediatric faculty responsible for decisions on workforce recruitment and retention in academia. This study sought to describe levels of unconscious racial bias and perceived barriers to minority recruitment and retention among academic pediatric faculty leaders. Methods Authors measured unconscious racial bias in a sample of pediatric faculty attending diversity workshops conducted at local and national meetings in 2015. A paper version of the validated Implicit Association Test (IAT) measured unconscious racial bias. Subjects also reported perceptions about minority recruitment and retention. Results Of 68 eligible subjects approached, 58 (85%) consented and completed the survey with IAT. Of participants, 83% had leadership roles and 93% were involved in recruitment. Participants had slight pro-white/anti-black bias on the IAT (M=0.28, SD=0.49). There were similar IAT scores among participants in leadership roles (M=0.33, SD=0.47) and involved in recruitment (M=0.28, SD=0.43). Results did not differ when comparing participants in local workshops to the national workshop (n=36, M=0.29, SD=0.40 and n=22, M=0.27, SD=0.49 respectively; p=0.88). Perceived barriers to minority recruitment and retention included lack of minority mentors, poor recruitment efforts, and lack of qualified candidates. Conclusions Unconscious pro-white/anti-black racial bias was identified in this sample of academic pediatric faculty and leaders. Further research is needed to examine how unconscious bias impacts decisions in academic pediatric workforce recruitment. Addressing unconscious bias and perceived barriers to minority recruitment and retention represent opportunities to improve diversity efforts.
Background:The presence of patent foramen ovale (PFO) alone does not increase the risk of ischemic stroke. Several prospective studies with a small number of patients have shown that the risk of ischemic stroke is higher in patients with PFO and pulmonary embolism (PE). We studied the association of ischemic stroke in the patients who had PFO with PE (PFOwiPE) and compared with the patients who had PFO without PE (PFOwoPE).Methods: Electronic medical records of 154 adult patients in our internal medicine office were reviewed. Thirty-four patients had PFOw-iPE and 120 had PFOwoPE. Independent t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test were used to compare the continuous variables between the two groups, while Chi-square tests were applied to compare the categorical variables between the two groups. Logistic regression was used for multivariate analysis. The dependent variable was stroke and the independent variable of interest was PFO with, or without PE.Results: Mean age of patients with PFOwiPE was 54.8 years and patients with PFOwoPE was 57.8 years (P = 0.331). Mean body mass index (BMI) of the patients with PFOwiPE was significantly greater than the patients with PFOwoPE (32.5 ± 8.84 kg/m 2 vs. 28.4 ± 6.99 kg/m 2 ; P < 0.05). Mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and red blood cell (RBC) count of patients with PFOwiPE was significantly lower than patients with PFOwoPE (LVEF 54.9 ± 13.01% vs. 59.6 ± 6.85%, P < 0.05; RBC 4.1 ± 1.203 × 10 6 /µL vs. 4.5 ± 0.596 × 10 6 /µL, P < 0.05). There was significantly higher association of congestive heart failure (CHF) in patients with PFOwiPE compared to patients with PFOwoPE (20.6% vs. 7.5%; P < 0.05). Association of ischemic stroke was 35.3% in patients with PFOwiPE and 39.2% in patients with PFOwoPE. The difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.682).Conclusions: Association of ischemic stroke was similar in patients with PFOwiPE and patients with PFOwoPE. Association of significantly higher BMI, lower LVEF, lower RBC count, and higher frequency of CHF were associated with patients with PFOwiPE compared to the patients with PFOwoPE.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.