The Career Advising Program: A Strategy to Achieve Gender Equity in Academic Medicine

Roy, Brita; Gottlieb, Amy S.

doi:10.1007/s11606-016-3969-7

Cited by 26 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…10 National professional societies can also have a unique role in supporting women's engagement in prominent national leadership roles to enhance promotion. 11 A program developed by the Society of General Internal Medicine pairs junior women in academic medicine with senior faculty members from different institutions in a 2-year advising relationship focused on sponsorship for targeted career advancement. Early results are promising, and if other national professional societies follow suit, additional gains in advancement of women to senior roles and to leadership positions can be expected.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Pay Gaps in Medicine: Moving from Explanations to Action

Roy

2018

J GEN INTERN MED

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A lmost one half of medical school students are now women, and women make up over one third of the total physician workforce. Yet gender inequities in physician compensation persist, with reported gender-based pay gaps of 16 to 37%.1 Many potential explanations for this pay gap have been suggested, including prioritization of work-life balance, rates of working part-time, specialty choice, years of experience, fewer women in leadership roles and in senior positions, and lack of mentorship and sponsorship for women to promote career advancement. Prior studies have sought to control for many of these and found persistent gender disparities, but have thus far failed to account for the exact quantity and composition of hours worked (e.g., performing procedures versus teaching).The study by Apaydin et al. 2 in this issue of the Journal of General Internal Medicine sought to address this gap in the literature by using survey data from 30 diverse physician practices across six states to assess how much of the gender pay disparity could be explained by specialty choice, time worked and composition of those work hours, fraction of procedural time, type of compensation, number of years in practice, and demographics. The authors report a raw, absolute difference of close to $100k in yearly salary between men and women. Approximately $40k of this difference was attributable to practice characteristics, $13k was attributable to specialty choice (more women were in primary care specialties and more men performed procedures), $10k was attributable to number of hours worked, and $2k was attributable to composition of hours worked. In their full model, 70% of the gender-based pay disparity was explained by all included variables, including the quantity and composition of hours worked, leaving 30% of the disparity still unexplained.While this study successfully identifies some additional, modest contributors to and mediators of the gender-based disparity in compensation that may act as targets for interventions, future efforts should move beyond explaining the residual 30% income gap. Rather, the field of medicine should begin testing approaches to mitigate the observed gender pay disparity in both identified and unidentified causes of the disparity.Given that practice characteristics and specialty type explained a large portion of the overall gender pay gap, attention should be paid to the cultural influences in medical school that may deter women from pursuing procedural specialties.3 Indeed, in this sample, only 4% of women were in medical or surgical specialties, compared to 12 and 19% of men, respectively. Addressing the underlying influences that dissuade women from pursuing procedural specialties during medical school may contribute to closing the gender pay gap.In addition to supporting equal opportunities for men and women pursuing medical and surgical specialties, the disparity in pay between procedural and cognitive specialties and differences in reimbursement models should also be examined and addressed. The dispari...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Pay Gaps in Medicine: Moving from Explanations to Action

Roy

2018

J GEN INTERN MED

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, much of the literature suggesting this use has spoken of the idea theoretically, citing little specific research, because little exists. 6,9,18 It is possible that such a difference does indeed exist among women in academic medicine who have not yet achieved a position such as chair of a department, but is not present at the level of department chairs. The chairs in our survey were relatively older, supporting this notion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coaching, Mentoring, and Sponsoring as Career Development Tools

Seehusen

Rogers

Achkar

et al. 2021

Fam Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives: Coaching, mentoring, and sponsoring are tools academic leaders can utilize to develop junior faculty. Each tool has a unique goal, time frame and method. It has been suggested that sponsoring may be a particularly useful tool for furthering the careers of women in medicine. Our primary aim was to understand to what extent one group of academic leaders—family medicine department chairs—have benefited from each tool in their own career development and how often they use each to develop others. A secondary aim was to compare women’s experiences with sponsorship to their male colleagues. Methods: We surveyed all US family medicine department chairs electronically about their experiences with coaching, mentoring, and sponsoring. We collected data from August 2019 to October 2019. Results: One hundred five of 193 family medicine department chairs responded to our survey (54.4% response rate). Most indicated that mentoring played a significant role in their career development, with fewer reporting coaching and sponsorship played significant roles. More reported frequent use of mentoring to develop faculty compared to coaching or sponsoring. Training in mentoring and sponsoring was associated with increased use, but coaching was not. No gender difference was found in this study population. Conclusions: Chairs have less experience with coaching and sponsoring than mentoring. Personal experience being coached, mentored, or sponsored was associated with increased use of these tools. Formal training may increase use of mentoring and sponsoring. Contrary to our hypothesis, female chairs’ experience with sponsoring was similar to their male peers.

show abstract

“…women and minorities who may not have identified themselves as leaders. 12,13 In 2016, the Council of Academic Family Medicine (CAFM) established a Leadership Development Task Force to specifically address the lack of diversity in academic family medicine leadership, particularly for women and underrepresented minorities (black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/ Alaskan Native). CAFM is comprised of the leadership of the four academic family medicine organizations: the Association of Departments of Family Medicine (ADFM), the Association of Family Medicine Residency Directors (AFMRD), the North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG), and the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM).…”

Section: Original Articlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leadership Pathways in Academic Family Medicine: Focus on Underrepresented Minorities and Women

Coe

Piggott²,

Davis

et al. 2020

Fam Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives: Leadership positions in academic medicine lack racial and gender diversity. In 2016, the Council of Academic Family Medicine (CAFM) established a Leadership Development Task Force to specifically address the lack of diversity among leadership in academic family medicine, particularly for underrepresented minorities and women. approach: The task force was formed in August 2016 with members from each of the CAFM organizations representing diversity of race, gender, and academic position. The group met from August 2016 to December 2017. The task force reviewed available leadership development programming, and through consensus identified common pathways toward key leadership positions in academic family medicine—department chairs, program directors, medical student education directors, and research directors. consensus development: The task force developed a model that describes possible pathways to several leadership positions within academic family medicine. Additionally, we identified the intentional use of a multidimensional mentoring team as critically important for successfully navigating the path to leadership. Conclusions: There are ample opportunities available for leadership development both within family medicine organizations and outside. That said, individuals may require assistance in identifying and accessing appropriate opportunities. The path to leadership is not linear and leaders will likely hold more than one position in each of the domains of family medicine. Development as a leader is greatly enhanced by forming a multidimensional team of mentors.

show abstract

The Career Advising Program: A Strategy to Achieve Gender Equity in Academic Medicine

Cited by 26 publications

References 3 publications

Gender Pay Gaps in Medicine: Moving from Explanations to Action

Gender Pay Gaps in Medicine: Moving from Explanations to Action

Coaching, Mentoring, and Sponsoring as Career Development Tools

Leadership Pathways in Academic Family Medicine: Focus on Underrepresented Minorities and Women

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About