Search

Introduction: Similar proportions of women and men have entered medical school since 2003. However, career advancement and promotion for women continues to be fraught with disparities and inequalities. Building on current literature, this study explores the rates of change of female faculty in faculty ranks over the last 10 years to gain a more comprehensive view of the faculty trends of women in academic medicine. Methods: Using the Faculty Administrative Management Online User System database, counts by gender and faculty rank at each Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) academic medical school were obtained. Statistical analysis was done using generalized estimating equations modeling to assess rates of change for each gender from 2012 to 2021. Results: Higher proportions of female faculty are concentrated at the Instructor and Assistant Professor level and lower proportions at the Associate Professor and Professor rank compared to male faculty. Over the study period, female faculty showed increased rate change compared to male faculty of 1.007 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.002–1.012) for Associate Professor rank and 1.012 (95% CI: 1.007–1.016) for Professor rank. At the Instructor and Assistant Professor levels, female faculty decreased at a relative rate of 0.980 (95% CI: 0.969–0.990) and 0.995 (95% CI: 0.992–0.997) each year, respectively. Conclusion: Female faculty continue to be concentrated at the junior faculty rank. Rate changes at the senior faculty rank for female faculty have slightly improved over the last 10 years compared to male faculty. However, this improvement is minimal, and work is still needed to achieve true gender equity in academic medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Peak fertility commonly occurs during medical training, and delaying parenthood can complicate pregnancies. Trainee parental leave policies are varied and lack transparency. Research on the impacts of parenthood on trainee education is limited. Methods: A Qualtrics-based survey was distributed via e-mail/social media to program directors (PDs) within oncologic specialties with a request to forward a parallel survey to trainees. Questions assessed awareness of parental leave policies, supportiveness of parenthood, and impacts on trainee education. Statistical analyses included descriptive frequencies and bivariable comparisons by key groups. Results: A total of 195 PDs and 286 trainees responded. Twelve percent and 29% of PDs were unsure of maternity/paternity leave options, respectively. PDs felt they were more supportive of trainee parenthood than trainees perceived they were. Thirty-nine percent of nonparent trainees (NPTs) would have children already if not in medicine, and >80% of women trainees were concerned about declining fertility. Perceived impacts of parenthood on trainee overall education and academic productivity were more negative for women trainees when rated by PDs and NPTs; however, men/women parents self-reported equal impacts. Leave burden was perceived as higher for women trainees. Conclusions: A significant portion of PDs lack awareness of parental leave policies, highlighting needs for increased transparency. Trainees' perception of PD support for parenthood is less than PD self-reported support. Alongside significant rates of delayed parenthood and fertility concerns, this poses a problem for trainees seeking to start a family, particularly women who are perceived more negatively. Further work is needed to create a supportive culture for trainee parenthood. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The aim of this study was to utilize an intersectional framework to examine academic faculty's lived experiences during COVID-19. Specifically, we set out to: (1) describe the multiple intersectional identities (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, rank, caregiver status, disability status) represented by the faculty, (2) examine potential disparities in well-being, workload, and productivity linked to these intersectional factors, and (3) identify qualitative themes endorsed by faculty as they relate to lived experiences during COVID-19. Methods: This was a cross-sectional mixed-methods research study. The Center for Women in Medicine and Science (CWIMS) at the University of Minnesota developed and implemented a survey between February–June of 2021 in response to national reports of disparities in the impacts of COVID-19 on faculty with lived experiences from multiple intersections. Results: There were 291 full-time faculty who participated in the study. Quantitative findings indicated that faculty with multiple intersectional identities (e.g., woman+assistant professor+caregiver+underrepresented in medicine) reported greater depression symptoms, work/family conflict, and stress in contrast to faculty with fewer intersectional identities. Furthermore, faculty with more intersectional identities reported higher clinical workloads and service responsibilities and lower productivity with regard to research article submissions, publications, and grant submissions in contrast to faculty with fewer intersectional identities. Qualitative findings supported quantitative findings and broadened understanding of potential underlying reasons. Conclusions: Findings confirm anecdotal evidence that faculty with lived experiences from multiple intersections may be disproportionately experiencing negative outcomes from the pandemic. These findings can inform decisions about how to address these disparities moving into the next several years with regard to promotion and tenure, burnout and well-being, and faculty retention in academic medical settings. Given these findings, it is also important to intentionally plan responses for future public health crises to prevent continued disparities for faculty with multiple intersectional identities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Gender parity lags in academic medicine. We applied the Rank Equity Index (REI) to compare the longitudinal progress of women's academic medicine careers. We hypothesized that women have different rank parity in promotion by specialty based on the proportion of women in the specialty. Materials and Methods: Aggregate data by sex for medical students, residents, assistant professors, associate professors, and professors in nine specialties were obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges for 2019–2020. Specialties were clustered into terciles based on the proportion of women in the field: upper (obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, psychiatry), middle (internal medicine, emergency medicine, anesthesia), and lower (surgery, urology, and orthopedic surgery). We calculated the percentage representation by sex by specialty and rank to calculate REI. Specialty-specific REI comparisons between each rank were performed to assess parity in advancement. Results: Only specialties in the upper tercile recruited proportionally more women medical students to residency training. All specialties advanced women for the resident-to-assistant professor with psychiatry, internal medicine, emergency medicine, anesthesia, urology, and orthopedic surgery that promoted women faculty at rates above parity. No specialty demonstrated parity in advancement based on sex for the assistant professor-to-associate professor or associate professor-to-professor transitions. Conclusion: Gender inequity in advancement is evident in academic medicine starting at the assistant professor-to-associate professor stage, regardless of overall proportion of women in the specialty. This suggests a common set of barriers to career advancement of women faculty in academic medicine that must be addressed starting at the early career stage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although women and men have matriculated into medical schools in similar proportions since the 1980s, recent data indicate that anesthesiology is lagging in gender equity, especially in academic leadership roles.1,2 As promotion in academic medicine is strongly influenced by publications, understanding whether a lack of women authorship is contributing to this gender gap is crucial.3,4 This article aims to assess how woman authorship trends have changed in the last 16 years, including during the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and Methods: The five highest impact journals in anesthesia were identified as Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, British Journal of Anaesthesia, Anesthesiology, PAIN, and Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine. Number of total authors, including women, men, and unknown gender authors as well as incidence of woman first and/or last author, was documented from articles published in 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020, and 2021. Results: This analysis shows that women are gaining representation in anesthesia publications. Overall, there was a statistically significant increase in the total number of women authors and women first and last authorship. However, as of 2021, women still only represented ∼40% of total and first authors and ∼24% of last authors. In addition, increase in first/last woman authorship was not present in all journals when stratified. Conclusion: These journal differences may suggest the editorial evaluation process as a potential source of gender bias. There was a statistically significant relationship between women senior authors and articles with 50% or more women authors, indicating that woman mentorship is contributing to closing equity gap. These data present a starting point for further investigations into gender disparities within anesthesia to continue the forward progression for women in academic medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Women physicians remain a minority in most medical specialties and are at higher risk of workplace harassment than men. This research examines the relationship between a medical specialty's gender composition and physicians' workplace harassment experience. Materials and Methods: We used the Association of American Medical Colleges' National Sample Survey of Physicians 2019 (n = 6000). Participants self-reported harassment experiences in the 12 months preceding the survey, including threats of physical harm, physical harm, offensive and sexist remarks, and unwanted sexual advances from patients and coworkers. We used data from the American Medical Association to determine medical specialties' gender composition. We used multiple logistic regression to assess the relationship between harassment experiences and specialty gender composition. Results: Women and men physicians reported threats and harm at similar rates. However, women reported offensive, sexist remarks and unwanted sexual advances more frequently. We found greater representation of women within a specialty is associated with a lower prevalence of harassment experienced by men and women physicians (e.g., threats of physical harm, odds ratio [OR] = 0.973 [women] and 0.984 [men], and unwanted sexual advances, OR = 0.976 [women] and 0.981 [men]). Also, as women's representation in a specialty increases, the gender gap in experiences of most types of harassment decreases. Conclusions: Greater representation of women within a medical specialty is associated with a safer environment for both men and women physicians and narrower gender gaps in harassment experience. Our findings support efforts to increase gender diversity across the specialties and illuminate the dire need for antiharassment solutions in specialties with low women's representation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Gender equity is a critical issue in academic medicine. Whether there is equitable access to the prestige and resources of endowed professorships merits evaluation. We investigated this question in obstetrics and gynecology, a field that focuses on the health of women and in which women are much better represented than other specialties of medicine. Materials and Methods: We compiled a list of the top 25 United States departments of obstetrics and gynecology and contacted department chairs (and used department websites) to obtain lists of faculty and their positions. Scopus, department websites, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) RePORTER were used to collect h-Index, number of publications and citations, graduation year, degrees, gender, and NIH-funding. We conducted a bivariate comparison of endowed professorship attainment by gender using a chi-square test and created a multiple variable regression model. Results: Of the 680 obstetrics and gynecology faculty across 23 departments that had endowed chairs, 64 out of 400 women (16%) and 66 out of 280 men (24%) held endowed chairs (p = 0.01). The multivariable model suggested no independent gender difference in attainment of an endowed chair after adjusting for covariates. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this study is the first to examine gender as a variable in endowed chair allocation in top obstetrics and gynecology academic departments. Our findings suggest a significant gender difference in the allocation of endowed chairs. That difference is driven by gender differences in academic rank, graduation year, publications, and funding. To promote the intraprofessional equity necessary to optimally advance women's health, further research and intervention are necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the gender composition of the American Board of Medical Specialties' (ABMS) member boards and evaluate the equitable inclusion of women and a subset of women physicians. Methods: The gender of individuals on 24 boards as of March 1, 2022, was assessed. Two benchmarks—parity (50:50 representation) and equity (compared to the proportion of practicing physicians in each medical specialty)—were utilized to determine if women are equitably represented on medical boards. Results: Four hundred forty individuals hold 449 total positions on the boards examined. Of board the members, 60.7% (267/440) are men, and 92.3% (406/440) are physicians. Physician board members comprised more men (64.0%, 260/406; p < 0.001), whereas more women comprise the 34 nonphysician board members (79.4%, 27/34; p < 0.001). Using specialty representation (equity) as the benchmark, of 22 specialties for which physician gender/sex data are available, women physicians are underrepresented on 36.4% (8/22) of boards. When parity (50%) is the comparator, 72.0% (18/25) of boards comprised less than 50% women. Compared to a 2016 analysis, the proportion of women overall (including non-physicians) increased on 68.0% (17/25), decreased on 24.0% (6/25), and remained unchanged on 8.0% (2/25) of boards in 2022. Conclusions: This study reveals mixed results in the equitable inclusion of women on ABMS boards. Our findings suggest that progress should not be assumed and that it may be subject to setbacks when it occurs. There is a need to continue to monitor the equitable inclusion of women on ABMS boards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Emerging data suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted women in academic medicine, potentially eliminating recent gains that have been made toward gender equity. This study examined possible pandemic-related gender disparities in research grant submissions, one of the most important criteria for academic promotion and tenure evaluations. Methods: Data were collected from two major academic institutions (one private and one public) on the gender and academic rank of faculty principal investigators who submitted new grants to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) during COVID-19 (March 1st, 2020, through August 31, 2020) compared with a matched period in 2019 (March 1st, 2019, through August 31, 2019). t-Tests and chi-square analyses compared the gender distribution of individuals who submitted grants during the two periods of examination. Results: In 2019 (prepandemic), there was no significant difference in the average number of grants submitted by women compared with men faculty. In contrast, women faculty submitted significantly fewer grants in 2020 (during the pandemic) than men. Men were also significantly more likely than women to submit grants in both 2019 and 2020 compared with submitting in 2019 only, suggesting men faculty may have been more likely than their women colleagues to sustain their productivity in grant submissions during the pandemic. Discussion: Women's loss of extramural funding may compound over time, as it impedes new data collection, research progress, and academic advancement. Efforts to support women's research productivity and career trajectories are urgently needed in the following years of pandemic recovery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The gaps in clinical trial evidence about vaccination in pregnancy have serious implications for health care worker and public misunderstandings. Contradictions between National Immunization Technical Advisory Group (NITAG) recommendations and regulatory product labeling information contribute to misinformation about vaccine safety and effectiveness. Methods: A mixed methods approach that included a stakeholder consensus decision-making workshop and a national survey of Canadian health care providers (HCPs). Results: We identified knowledge gaps and serious limitations concerning the information in vaccine product labels. Stakeholders were troubled that some HCPs rely on regulatory product labels to inform their decisions without knowing their limitations in content. Our survey showed that HCPs were uncertain about the purpose of product labels and the evidence contained in them. Over a third of respondents incorrectly thought that product labels and NITAG recommendations are based on the same evidence and that the information they contain is regularly updated. Conclusions: Applying social risk theories, we show how such gaps in information defer responsibility for decisions about disease risk and vaccine safety from regulatory agencies and vaccine manufacturers onto HCPs and their clients. This may be especially relevant for COVID-19 and other emerging vaccines that are initially authorized for conditional or emergency use, and especially in understudied populations such as pregnant people. More frequent updating and alignment of robust, unbiased, and independently reviewed clinical trial and postmarket safety and effectiveness evidence with NITAG recommendations would allay HCP and public misunderstandings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Gender disparities in academic promotion and leadership are well documented. Scholarly impact is essential for promotion. The Hirsch-index (h-index) is a measure of impact using number of publications and citations. We sought to (i) evaluate breast surgery fellowship faculty in North America by academic rank and research impact using the h-index, (ii) determine whether there is a gender difference in scholarly productivity, and (iii) determine the relationship between academic rank, h-index, and gender. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study of h-index and academic rank disparity in breast surgery faculty by gender was performed. We reviewed the faculty of Society of Surgical Oncology-accredited breast surgery fellowships in February 2019. Rank, gender, academic appointment, years in practice, program directorship, National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center association, size of the program, and h-index (via Scopus) were recorded. Univariate and multiple linear regression analyses were performed. Results: Fifty-two programs were identified, and 209 faculty had an h-index. Of them, 69.9% were women and 30.1% were men. h-index increased with academic rank although there was considerable overlap between ranks. Women were underrepresented at the professor level (46.4%), but accounted for the majority of assistant professors (91.5%, p < 0.001), and program directors (70.7%). Men professors had a significantly higher mean h-index than women professors, p < 0.001. However, women associate professors had a higher mean h-index than men, but this did not reach significance. Conclusions: Mean h-index increased with increasing rank among breast surgery faculty for both genders. Average h-index was significantly higher for men professors compared to women professors. No significant gender difference in h-index was found for assistant professors. For associate professors, h-index for women was higher than for men. Women are underrepresented at higher academic ranks despite forming the majority of breast surgical teaching faculty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although sex differences are described in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnoses and testing, many studies neglect possible gender-related influences. Additionally, research is often performed in clinical populations, while most COVID-19 patients are not hospitalized. Therefore, we investigated associations between sex and gender-related variables, and COVID-19 diagnoses and testing practices in a large general population cohort during the first wave of the pandemic when testing capacity was limited. Methods: We used data from the Lifelines COVID-19 Cohort (N = 74,722; 60.8% female). We applied bivariate and multiple logistic regression analyses. The outcomes were a COVID-19 diagnosis (confirmed by SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing or physician's clinical diagnosis) and PCR testing. Independent variables included among others participants' sex, age, somatic comorbidities, occupation, and smoking status. Sex-by-comorbidity and sex-by-occupation interaction terms were included to investigate sex differences in associations between the presence of comorbidities or an occupation with COVID-19 diagnoses or testing practices. Results: In bivariate analyses female sex was significantly associated with COVID-19 diagnoses and testing, but significance did not persist in multiple logistic regression analyses. However, a gender-related variable, being a health care worker, was significantly associated with COVID-19 diagnoses (OR = 1.68; 95%CI = 1.30–2.17) and testing (OR = 12.5; 95%CI = 8.55–18.3). Female health care workers were less often diagnosed and tested than male health care workers (ORinteraction = 0.54; 95%CI = 0.32–0.92, ORinteraction = 0.53; 95%CI = 0.29–0.97, respectively). Conclusions: We found no sex differences in COVID-19 diagnoses and testing in the general population. Among health care workers, a male preponderance in COVID-19 diagnoses and testing was observed. This could be explained by more pronounced COVID-19 symptoms in males or by gender inequities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Considerable evidence has demonstrated that gender influences interactions during in-person meetings, most commonly, negatively impacting women and persons of color. Pervasive gender stereotypes about roles that were (and are) occupied by men and women lead to implicit assumptions about competency in said roles. For example, women may receive more negative verbal interruptions or nonverbal cues that undermine their authority as a leader, a stereotypically male-typed role. The coronavirus pandemic has led to the rapid rise in videoconferencing in professional interactions; however, little is known about videoconferencing etiquette and how gender bias permeates to this new setting. Although there are many benefits to the use of this technology, it has the potential to reinforce gender bias rooted in cultural and societal norms, gender stereotypes, and traditional gender roles. The well-documented implicit biases that have been shown to favor men over women during in-person meetings may translate to further gender gaps in leadership during virtual meetings. It is also possible that videoconferencing could be used to reduce gender bias, but until we have research to shine a light on this topic, this article provides 10 tips for promoting gender equity during virtual meetings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health risks among informal caregivers have received inadequate attention in low and middle income countries. We examined cross-sectional data from 28611 adults 18 years and older in Ghana, India, Mexico, Russia and South Africa in the WHO Study on Global AGEing and Adult Health (SAGE) to examine gender differences in informal caregiving and wellbeing. Methods: Wellbeing was measured by self-rated health, difficulties with tasks, self-reported and diagnosed depression and anxiety. Informal caregiving was specific to adults and constructed as categorical variable with the respondent as: the main caregiver, non-caregiver but an adult in the household needs care, and no-one ill in the household; multinomial gender-stratified regression models assessed adjusted relative risk ratios (ARRRs). Results: Female caregivers were more likely to report moderate difficulties with life tasks [ARRR = 1.45 (95% CI: 1.01, 2.08)], feel mild-moderate anxiety [ARRR = 1.64 (95% CI: 1.22, 2.22)], and report feeling severely depressed [ARRR = 1.86 (95% CI: 1.28, 2.69)] compared to female non-caregivers. Even when women were not caregivers, having someone ill at home was associated with extreme difficulties with life tasks [ARRR = 2.32 (95% CI: 1.33, 4.04)]. Male caregivers, compared to no-one ill in the household, were more likely to report mild-moderate anxiety [ARRR = 1.8 (95% CI: 1.2, 3.7)] and severe-extreme anxiety [ARRR = 2.22 (95% CI: 1.07, 4.6)]. Conclusions: Caregiving for older adults results in greater health burdens, particularly mental health, for both women and men, though evidence shows that these burdens may be prominent and manifest in more diverse ways for women relative to men. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite significant progress in recent decades, the recruitment, advancement, and promotion of women in academia remain low. Women represent a large portion of the talent pool in academia, and receive >50% of all PhDs, but this has not yet translated into sustained representation in faculty and leadership positions. Research indicates that women encounter numerous ‘‘chutes’’ that remove them from academia or provide setbacks to promotion at all stages of their careers. These include the perception that women are less competent and their outputs of lesser quality, implicit bias in teaching evaluations and grant funding decisions, and lower citation rates. This review aims to (1) synthesize the ‘‘chutes’’ that impede the careers of women faculty, and (2) provide feasible recommendations, or ‘‘ladders’’ for addressing these issues at all career levels. Enacting policies that function as ‘‘ladders’’ rather than ‘‘chutes’’ for academic women is essential to even the playing field, achieve gender equity, and foster economic, societal, and cultural benefits of academia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Gender-related differences have been found among invited speakers in select professional and medical societies. We examined whether similar disparities existed among keynote speakers, plenary speakers, and invited lecturers in a broad range of medical specialty conferences from 2013 to 2017. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed on 27 U.S. medical specialty conferences for which data were available on plenary speakers, keynote speakers, and/or invited lecturers. For each speaker, gender and degree(s) were determined. Fisher's exact test was performed to compare proportions of women among speakers to Association of American Medical Colleges' (AAMC) physician workforce data on gender distribution. Results: In aggregate, we identified 246 women among 984 speakers, significantly lower than expected when compared with 2015 AAMC data (25.0% vs. 34.0%; p < 0.00001). Compared with AAMC data reported in 2013, 2015, and 2017, women were significantly underrepresented in 2013 (p = 0.0064) and 2015 (p = 0.00004). In 2017, the proportion of women among invited speakers trended lower than AAMC active women physicians but did not reach significance (p = 0.309). Analysis of individual conference data stratified by year indicated that, while the representation of women among all speakers improved between 2015 and 2017, the representation of women among keynote speakers, plenary speakers, and invited lectureships was variable (including zero levels some years during the study period) and remained lower than expected as compared with workforce data for specific medical specialties. Conclusions: Evaluating for and improving disparities is recommended to ensure gender equity among invited speakers across all medical specialty conferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Understanding the work habits, attitudes, and experiences of women physicians is critical for optimal patient care. In a gendered work environment, obstacles faced hinder women physicians from contributing to their full ability. This study investigated how women physicians' work habits are viewed, in the context of women's attitudes and experiences. Methods: An analysis of the medical literature (1990–2017) was undertaken. Published studies were located using search engines, article references, consultation with experts, and relevant Mesh terms. Of 1185 listings, 354 studies were evaluated and 44 articles, selected by three reviewers, were analyzed in detail. Results: Four themes emerged—practice styles, productivity, prevailing attitudes, and the workplace environment. Comparing women physicians to male colleagues as a standard for evaluating performance, for example, undervalues distinctive characteristics women bring to medical practice. Productivity models that focus on work hours, procedures, and publications do not encompass the full scope of patient care. Conclusions: Solutions offered mainly have been designed to help women physicians fit into existing workplace environments, but traditionally available "adapt or exit" options in response to challenges faced appear insufficient. A gender equity perspective helps to explain findings and suggests ways to reshape the health care workplace to better understand, utilize, and retain women physicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this perspective piece, we describe a multifactorial phenomenon whereby academic women physicians become invisible in the mid-career stage. Barriers, both small and large, cause a cumulative inequity effect, and women may leave academic medicine. Certainly, family and lifestyle choices play a role. And as we describe, so is a situation created where women become discouraged and disillusioned. We describe the growing evidence of subtle disparities, or micro-inequities, that cause women to be less visible and marginalized. Over time, early career women transition to mid-career with an accumulation of these micro-inequities. Women have more difficulty in building their academic portfolios and curriculum vitae—core components of academic promotion. They comprise greater than 50% of the health care workforce; yet, they are underrepresented in top leadership positions. For example, only 22% of full professors, 18% of department chairs, and 17% of medical school deans are women. Macro-inequities, which are observable and measurable, are also well documented. For example, women receive less compensation than men for the same job. We examine the contributing and causative processes and offer suggestions on how to promote equity among highly qualified mid-career women as they graduate from training and move beyond the early career stage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Within free-standing academic medical centers, women continue to be underrepresented at upper faculty ranks and in leadership positions. A career development program (CDP) at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) was implemented with the goal of improving the number of women in the upper ranks and in leadership positions. The CDP was initiated in 2013 as a 2-day program. Beginning in 2015, a half-day promotion-focused program was offered alternating with the 2-day program. Materials and Methods: The CDP has served ∼200 women from 2013 to 2017 and was evaluated for reaction and learning through postprogram surveys. Promotion success of ∼160 women who attended at least one of the programs through 2016 was assessed through an additional survey. Promotion information for ∼3000 faculty members during the same 2013–2016 period (post-CDP), as well as a 4-year time period before implementation of the CDP (pre-CDP), was collected using university-level personnel data. Results: The majority of CDP attendees (94%) indicated overall satisfaction with the program and would recommend the program to a colleague. Of the 137 CDP attendees still employed at MUSC in 2017, 50 had applied for promotion and 42 (84%) were successfully promoted. Among all the MUSC faculty, overall and rank-sepcific promotion rates for women and men were similar during the post-CDP time period and there was a significant increase in the promotion rate of women to Full Professor from pre-CDP to post-CDP time periods. Conclusions: CDP attendees were overwhelmingly satisfied with the program and were highly successful in being promoted. Since the overall university promotion rates of women and men were similar during the post-CDP time period and women are currently underrepresented at the upper faculty ranks, parity between men and women will likely not be achievable without additional programs to retain and/or recruit women in the upper ranks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Higher rates of burnout among female physicians as compared with male physicians remain a troubling phenomenon. Achieving gender equity in academic advancement is a critical component of addressing this gap. During the timeframe of childbearing and rearing, enhanced control and flexibility are desired workplace changes and offered by telehealth work modalities. This viewpoint explores the role of telehealth and the remote work environment in optimizing control and flexibility, which can increase participation in academic advancement opportunities and improve female physician burnout. Widespread promotion of remote clinical practice and participation in scholarly activities beyond the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic may be a component of the long-term solution to female physician burnout. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]