Search

Background: Intersection of gender and race and/or ethnicity in academic medicine is understudied; we aim to understand these factors in relation to scholarly achievements for neurology faculty. Methods: Faculty from 19 US neurology departments completed a survey (2021-2022) to report rank, leadership positions, publications, funded projects, awards, and speaker invitations. Regression analyses examined effects of gender, race, and their intersectionality on these achievements. Women, Black/Indigenous/People of Color (BIPOC), and BIPOC women were comparator groups. Results: Four hundred sixty-two faculty responded: 55% women, 43% men; 31% BIPOC, 63% White; 21% BIPOC women, 12% BIPOC men, 36% White women, 31% White men. Men and White faculty are more likely to be full professors than women and BIPOC faculty. The number of leadership positions, funded projects, awards, and speaker invitations are significantly greater in White compared to BIPOC faculty. Relative to BIPOC women, the number of leadership positions is significantly higher among BIPOC men, White women, and White men. Publication numbers for BIPOC men are lower, number of funded projects and speaker invitations for White women are higher, and number of awards among White men and White women is higher compared to BIPOC women. Discussion: Our study highlights that inequities in academic rank, award number, funded projects, speakership invitations, and leadership roles disproportionately impacted BIPOC women. More studies are needed to evaluate gender and race and/or ethnicity intersectionality effects on faculty achievements, reasons for inequities, recognition, and potential solutions.

Objective: To investigate the perceptions of lactation experiences of neurology faculty and the impact of lactation time on academic achievement. Materials and Methods: This was a cross-sectional study utilizing a survey administered across 19 academic neurology centers in the United States. Respondents self-identified as having children and answered questions about lactation at work. Demographic information; academic achievement including publications, guest speakerships, awards, leadership roles, and funding; and perception of lactation experience were analyzed. Results: Among 162 respondents, 83% took lactation time at work. Thirty-seven percent reported lack of employer support for lactation, 46% were dissatisfied with their lactation experience, 59% did not receive compensation for lactation time, 62% did not have blocked clinical time, 73% reported relative value units were not adjusted to accommodate lactation, and 43% reported lack of access to private lactation space. Women spent on average 9.5 months lactating per child and desired 2.4 further months of lactation. There was no difference in all measures of self-reported academic achievement between women who did and did not take lactation time when measured across all career stages. Conclusions: Although a majority of respondents took lactation time at work, perceptions of employer support for lactation were low, and expectations for work productivity were not adjusted to accommodate lactation time. Taking lactation time at work did not decrease self-reported academic achievement. System-level best practices designed to support lactating faculty should be developed to guide academic institutions.

Background: Given the persistent disparity in the advancement of women compared with men faculty in academic medicine, it is critical to develop effective interventions to enhance women's careers. We carried out a cluster-randomized, multifaceted intervention to improve the success of women assistant professors at a research-intensive medical school., Materials and Methods: Twenty-seven departments/divisions were randomly assigned to intervention or control groups. The three-tiered intervention included components that were aimed at (1) the professional development of women assistant professors, (2) changes at the department/division level through faculty-led task forces, and (3) engagement of institutional leaders. Generalized linear models were used to test associations between assignment and outcomes, adjusting for correlations induced by the clustered design., Results: Academic productivity and work self-efficacy improved significantly over the 3-year trial in both intervention and control groups, but the improvements did not differ between the groups. Average hours worked per week declined significantly more for faculty in the intervention group as compared with the control group (-3.82 vs. -1.39 hours, respectively, p = 0.006). The PhD faculty in the intervention group published significantly more than PhD controls; however, no differences were observed between MDs in the intervention group and MDs in the control group., Conclusions: Significant improvements in academic productivity and work self-efficacy occurred in both intervention and control groups, potentially due to school-wide intervention effects. A greater decline in work hours in the intervention group despite similar increases in academic productivity may reflect learning to "work smarter" or reveal efficiencies brought about as a result of the multifaceted intervention. The intervention appeared to benefit the academic productivity of faculty with PhDs, but not MDs, suggesting that interventions should be more intense or tailored to specific faculty groups.