Search

Background: A key recommendation from the landmark National Academies report called for research examining experiences of underrepresented and/or vulnerable groups, including people of color and sexual- and gender-minority people. We examine the prevalence of gender policing harassment (GPH), heterosexist harassment (HH), and racialized sexual harassment (RSH), by gender, LGBTQ+, race, and department grouping, which has not been previously examined in academic medicine. Materials and Methods: All faculty (n = 2723), fellows, residents, and first through third year medical students (n = 1822) at the University of Michigan Medical School (UMMS) who had been working at the organization for at least 1 year were invited to complete a 20-minute online survey. We assessed harassment within the past year, perpetrated by insiders (i.e., staff, students, and faculty) and from patients and patients' families. Results: A total of 705 faculty (25.9% of the targeted sample) and 583 trainees (32.0% of the targeted sample) were in the analytic sample. Women were significantly more likely to experience GPH from both sources than men, and LGBTQ+ individuals were more likely to face HH from both sources than cisgender heterosexual participants. Underrepresented minorities, Asian/Asian American, and female participants had higher rates of RSH perpetrated by insiders. There were significant department-group differences across harassment types. Conclusions: Less-studied forms of harassment are common within academic medicine and are perpetrated from various sources. Identity-based harassment should be investigated further to gain a comprehensive understanding of its impact within academic medicine. Clinical Trial Registration Number not applicable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A landmark National Academies report highlighted the need for rigorous evaluation of sexual harassment in medicine. We examined the prevalence and impact of sexual harassment using the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire, the standard for measurement of sexual harassment, but which has not been previously applied within academic medicine. Materials and Methods: A 20-minute online survey was administered to all faculty who had been working at University of Michigan Medical School for at least 1 year (n = 2723). We assessed sexual harassment within the past year from insiders (i.e., from staff, students, and faculty) and from patients and patients' families. We also evaluated mental health, job satisfaction, sense of safety at work, and turnover intentions. Results: In the final sample (n = 705; which included 25.9% of the originally targeted population), most respondents, 82.5% of women and 65.1% of men, reported at least one incident of sexual harassment from insiders in the past year; 64.4% of women and 44.1% of men reported harassment from patients and patients' families. The most frequently experienced dimension of sexual harassment for women and men was sexist gender harassment. Increased experiences of harassment were independently associated with lower mental health, job satisfaction, and sense of safety at work, as well as increased turnover intentions, with no significant interactions by gender. Conclusions: Sexual harassment against medical faculty is alarmingly common at an institution that is not expected to be atypical. Interventions must address sexual harassment, which affects mental health and career outcomes of male and female physicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]