Search

Background: Three national career development programs (CDPs)—Early and Mid-Career Programs sponsored by the Association of American Medical Colleges and the Hedwig van Ameringen Executive Leadership in Academic Medicine sponsored by Drexel University—seek to expand gender diversity in faculty and institutional leadership of academic medical centers. Over 20 years of success and continued need are evident in the sustained interest and investment of individuals and institutions. However, their impact on promotion in academic rank remains unknown. The purpose of the study is to compare promotion rates of women CDP participants and other faculty of similar institutional environment and initial career stage. Methods: The study examined retrospective cohorts of 2,719 CDP participants, 12,865 nonparticipant women, and 26,810 men, from the same institutions, with the same degrees, and first years of appointment in rank. Rates of promotion to Associate and Full Professor ranks in respective cohorts of Assistant and of Associate Professors were compared using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log-rank tests, and logistic regression adjusting for other predictors of academic success. Results: In adjusted analyses, participants were more likely than men and non-participant women to be promoted to Associate Professor and as likely as men and more likely than non-participant women to be promoted to Full Professor within 10 years. Within 5 years, CDP participants were more likely than nonparticipant women to be promoted to Associate Professor and as likely as to be promoted to Full Professor; in the same interval, participants were promoted to both higher ranks at the same rates as men. For both intervals, nonparticipant women were significantly less likely than men to be promoted to either rank. Conclusions: The higher rates of promotion for women participating in national CDPs support the effectiveness of these programs in building capacity for academic medicine.

Objective In a pilot study, our group showed that an internet-based self-management program improves self-efficacy in systemic sclerosis (SSc). The objective of the current study was to compare an internet-based self-management program to a patient-focused educational book developed to assess measures of self-efficacy and other patient-reported outcomes in patients with SSc. Methods We conducted a 16-week randomized, controlled trial. Results Of the 267 participants who completed baseline questionnaires and were randomized to the intervention (internet: www.selfmanagescleroderma.com) or control (book) group, 123 participants (93%) in the internet group and 124 participants (94%) in the control group completed the 16-week randomized controlled trial (RCT). The mean ± SD age of all participants was 53.7 ± 11.7 years, 91% were women, and 79.4% had some college or a higher degree. The mean ± SD disease duration after diagnosis of SSc was 8.97 ± 8.50 years. There were no statistical differences between the 2 groups for the primary outcome measure (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Self-Efficacy for Managing Symptoms: mean change of 0.35 in the internet group versus 0.94 in the control group; P = 0.47) and secondary outcome measures, except the EuroQol 5-domain instrument visual analog scale score (P = 0.05). Internet group participants agreed that the self-management modules were of importance to them, the information was presented clearly, and the website was easy to use and at an appropriate reading level. Conclusion Our RCT showed that the internet-based self-management website was not statistically superior to an educational patient-focused book in improving self-efficacy and other measures. The participants were enthusiastic about the content and presentation of the self-management website.

By 2006, women constituted 34% of academic medical faculty, reaching a critical mass. Theoretically, with critical mass, culture and policy supportive of gender equity should be evident. We explore whether having a critical mass of women transforms institutional culture and organizational change.Career development program participants were interviewed to elucidate their experiences in academic health centers (AHCs). Focus group discussions were held with institutional leaders to explore their perceptions about contemporary challenges related to gender and leadership. Content analysis of both data sources revealed points of convergence. Findings were interpreted using the theory of critical mass.Two nested domains emerged: the individual domain included the rewards and personal satisfaction of meaningful work, personal agency, tensions between cultural expectations of family and academic roles, and women's efforts to work for gender equity. The institutional domain depicted the sociocultural environment of AHCs that shaped women's experience, both personally and professionally, lack of institutional strategies to engage women in organizational initiatives, and the influence of one leader on women's ascent to leadership.The predominant evidence from this research demonstrates that the institutional barriers and sociocultural environment continue to be formidable obstacles confronting women, stalling the transformational effects expected from achieving a critical mass of women faculty. We conclude that the promise of critical mass as a turning point for women should be abandoned in favor of "critical actor" leaders, both women and men, who individually and collectively have the commitment and power to create gender-equitable cultures in AHCs.

© Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. 2016. Background: For more than two decades, national career development programs (CDPs) have addressed underrepresentation of women faculty in academic medicine through career and leadership curricula. We evaluated CDP participation impact on retention. Methods: We used Association of American Medical Colleges data to compare 3268 women attending CDPs from 1988 to 2008 with 17,834 women and 40,319 men nonparticipant faculty similar to CDP participants in degree, academic rank, first year of appointment in rank, and home institution. Measuring from first year in rank to departure from last position held or December 2009 (study end date), we used Kaplan-Meier curves; Cox survival analysis adjusted for age, degree, tenure, and department; and 10-year rates to compare retention. Results: CDP participants were significantly less likely to leave academic medicine than their peers for up to 8 years after appointment as Assistant and Associate Professors. Full Professor participants were significantly less likely to leave than non-CDP women. Men left less often than non-CDP women at every rank. Participants attending more than one CDP left less often than those attending one, but results varied by rank. Patterns of switching institutions after 10 years varied by rank; CDP participants switched significantly less often than men at Assistant and Associate Professor levels and significantly less often than non-CDP women among Assistant Professors. Full Professors switched at equal rates. Conclusion: National CDPs appear to offer retention advantage to women faculty, with implications for faculty performance and capacity building within academic medicine. Intervals of retention advantage for CDP participants suggest vulnerable periods for intervention.

Academic medicine has initiated changes in policy, practice, and programs over the past several decades to address persistent gender disparity and other issues pertinent to its sociocultural context. Three career development programs were implemented to prepare women faculty to succeed in academic medicine: two sponsored by the Association of American Medical Colleges, which began a professional development program for early career women faculty in 1988. By 1995, it had evolved into two programs one for early career women and another for mid-career women. By 2012, more than 4000 women faculty from medical schools across the U.S and Canada had participated in these intensive 3-day programs. The third national program, the Hedwig van Ameringen Executive Leadership in Academic Medicine(®) (ELAM) program for women, was developed in 1995 at the Drexel University College of Medicine.Narratives from telephone interviews representing reflections on 78 career development seminars between 1988 and 2010 describe the dynamic relationships between individual, institutional, and sociocultural influences on participants' career advancement.The narratives illuminate the pathway from participating in a career development program to self-defined success in academic medicine in revealing a host of influences that promoted and/or hindered program attendance and participants' ability to benefit after the program in both individual and institutional systems. The context for understanding the importance of these career development programs to women's advancement is nestled in the sociocultural environment, which includes both the gender-related influences and the current status of institutional practices that support women faculty.The findings contribute to the growing evidence that career development programs, concurrent with strategic, intentional support of institutional leaders, are necessary to achieve gender equity and diversity inclusion.

A mixed methods study examined the relationship between childhood adversity (ACE) and coping among individuals grouped by perceived impact of ACE in adulthood. Groups did not differ on mean total ACE scores and total ACE score was not associated with any coping strategy. Differences between groups were found in 6 of 14 coping strategies. Planning and active coping were endorsed the most by both groups, despite their being used in significantly different amounts and in different ways. How individuals with ACE rate its impact in their current lives is a significant factor in the use and meaning of coping strategies.

The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and Drexel University College of Medicine have designed and implemented national career development programs (CDPs) to help women faculty acquire and strengthen skills needed for success in academic medicine. The authors hypothesized that skills women acquired in CDPs would vary by career stage and program attended.In 2011, the authors surveyed a national cohort of 2,779 women listed in the AAMC Faculty Roster who also attended one of three CDPs (Early- and Mid-Career Women in Medicine Seminars, and/or Executive Leadership in Academic Medicine) between 1988 and 2010 to examine their characteristics and CDP experiences. Participants indicated from a list of 16 skills whether each skill was newly acquired, improved, or not improved as a result of their program participation.Of 2,537 eligible CDP women, 942 clicked on the link in an invitation e-mail, and 879 (93%) completed the survey. Respondents were representative of women faculty in academic medicine. Participants rated the CDPs highly. Almost all reported gaining and/or improving skills from the CDP. Four skills predominated across all three programs: interpersonal skills, leadership, negotiation, and networking. The skills that attendees endorsed differed by respondents' career stages, more so than by program attended.Women participants perceived varying skills gained or improved from their attendance at the CDPs. Determining ways in which CDPs can support women's advancement in academic medicine requires a deeper understanding of what participants seek from CDPs and how they use program content to advance their careers.