Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Faculty Diversity Trends by Sex, Race, and Ethnicity, 2007 to 2018 in the United States

Abstract

Introduction Sex and race/ethnicity disparities persist in academic Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R). This study contributes to the current body of knowledge by demonstrating changes in academic PM&R by sex and race/ethnicity in multiple categories over a 12‐year period. Objective To evaluate workforce disparities in academic PM&R by measuring sex and race/ethnicity diversity in academic degree, rank, and tenure status. Design Surveillance study. Setting and Methods Self‐reported data for PM&R from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) annual Faculty Roster report from 2007 to 2018. Main Outcome Measures The 12‐year average percentage composition in academic degree, rank, and tenure status was calculated to compare the overall distribution. Counts and proportion changes were plotted to depict the temporal trends. Absolute changes in racial percentage composition were graphed to highlight the progress. Results From 2007 to 2018, the increase by sex was roughly equal (male = 216; female = 236), whereas most of the increase was in White faculty (207). The representation of female and Underrepresented in Medicine (URiM) faculty decreased as academic level advanced. Instructors is the only category with a higher proportion of female faculty, from 2007 (53%) to 2018 (59.3%), whereas male faculty occupied over 75% of the full professor positions at any time. Among the non‐White faculty, Asian faculty had the greatest increase in proportion of full professors (3.7% to 10%) and Hispanic/Latino faculty in associate professors (2% to 7.1%), whereas full professors who were Black/African American decreased from 4 persons (2.5%) to 2 persons (0.8%). Conclusion An increase in total number of female and URiM faculty was observed in academic PM&R over 2007 to 2018, but sex and ethnicity/race disparities persisted, especially in higher ranks and leadership positions. For non‐White faculty, greater disparities existed, pointing toward the need to target challenges faced by URiM race/ethnicity status.

Training Characteristics, Academic Accomplishments, and Motivation of Current Chairs in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

“…9 Interestingly, a study done looking at the trend of female chairs from 2007 to 2018 found the number of female chairs in PM&R fell by 10% over this period. 4 The majority of the female chairs reported experiencing gender discrimination in the workplace, whereas more men experienced discrimination in the workplace due to ethnicity/race. This is likely due to only 14% of the chairs (2 of 15) being non-White women versus 29.4% of the chairs (10 of 34) being non-White men, therefore more likely to experience discrimination due to ethnicity/race.…”

“…Although many aspire to become chair, very few are able to achieve this prestigious role. Historically, in academic medicine and more specifically in physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R), women and ethnic/racial minorities have always been underrepresented with the most significant disparity noted at the chair level 2–4 …”

Health and health care disparities related to rehabilitation and COVID‐19

“…The pandemic has had and will continue to have a profound effect on the health care workforce, and the negative impact it has on women physicians and scientists may last throughout their careers. The pandemic has exacerbated preexisting disparities for many women in medicine, including physiatrists 38‐40 . For example, there were already pay and promotion inequities and during the pandemic many women took pay cuts or had a decrease in clinical revenue owing to budget cuts at work or increased childcare or eldercare responsibilities at home 41…”

Diversity and Inclusion in Internal Medicine Training Programs: An Unfulfilled Dream

“…These visual representations of the medical culture reinforce the acceptable norms and values, White and masculine, in medicine. This disproportionate representation is discernible across multiple subspecialties of medicine, National Institutes of Health funding, professional societies, medical journals' editorial boards, and clinical trials [7][8][9][10][11][12]. Similar gender and racial disparity persist in the specialty of Internal Medicine [13].…”