Search

Women's health and well-being are shaped by a combination of healthcare policies that impact the type of health insurance coverage they benefit from, as well as access to preventive, screening, and treatment services. Furthermore, more distal policies, such as those that pertain to housing, education, and employment, as well as social determinants of health, such as issues of socioeconomic status and women's status in society, also impact their cardiac health. Before the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, women were at greater risk of facing barriers to coverage, reflecting gender rating and the higher likelihood of the existence of preexisting health conditions such as a previous pregnancy. The ACA made substantial progress in responding to women's health needs by expanding the numbers of low-income groups eligible for Medicaid (for the 32 states and Washington, DC that expanded the program) and other subsidized healthcare, as well as access to preventive health services. Although health reform efforts to eliminate the ACA failed in 2016, the administration and Congress are using a variety of channels, including the new Tax Cuts and Job Act, to implement policies such as the elimination of the individual insurance mandate, as well as the elimination of premium subsidies, that will likely impact women differentially, potentially undoing the progress that has been achieved over the past decade.

PurposeCross-sectional studies have demonstrated gender differences in salaries within academic medicine. No research has assessed longitudinal compensation patterns. This study sought to assess longitudinal patterns by gender in compensation, and to understand factors associated with these differences in a longitudinal cohort.MethodA 17-year longitudinal follow-up of the National Faculty Survey was conducted with a random sample of faculty from 24 U.S. medical schools. Participants employed full-time at initial and follow-up time periods completed the survey. Annual pretax compensation during academic year 2012-2013 was compared by gender. Covariates assessed included race/ethnicity; years since first academic appointment; retention in academic career; academic rank; departmental affiliation; percent effort distribution across clinical, teaching, administrative, and research duties; marital and parental status; and any leave or part-time status in the years between surveys.ResultsIn unadjusted analyses, women earned a mean of $20,520 less than men (P = .03); women made 90 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts. This difference was reduced to $16,982 (P = .04) after adjusting for covariates. The mean difference of $15,159 was no longer significant (P = .06) when adjusting covariates and for those who had ever taken a leave or worked part-time.ConclusionsThe continued gender gap in compensation cannot be accounted for by metrics used to calculate salary. Institutional actions to address these disparities include both initial appointment and annual salary equity reviews, training of senior faculty and administrators to understand implicit bias, and training of women faculty in negotiating skills.

PurposeTo examine gender differences in academic productivity, as indicated by publications and federal grant funding acquisition, among a longitudinal cohort of medical faculty from 24 U.S. medical schools, 1995 to 2012-2013.MethodData for this research were taken from the National Faculty Survey involving a survey with medical faculty recruited from medical schools in 1995, and followed up in 2012-2013. Data included surveys and publication and grant funding databases. Outcomes were number of publications, h-index, and principal investigator on a federal grant in the prior two years. Gender differences were assessed using negative binomial regression models for publication and h-index outcomes, and logistic regression for the grant funding outcome; analyses adjusted for race/ethnicity, rank, specialty area, and years since first academic appointment.ResultsData were available for 1,244 of the 1,275 (98%) subjects eligible for the follow-up study. Men were significantly more likely than women to be married/partnered, have children, and hold the rank of professor (P < .0001). Adjusted regression models documented that women had a lower rate of publication (relative number = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.63, 0.81; P < .0001) and h-index (relative number = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.73, 0.90; P < .0001) relative to men, but there was no gender difference in grant funding.ConclusionsWomen faculty acquired federal funding at similar rates as male faculty, yet lagged behind in terms of publications and their impact. Medical academia must consider how to help address ongoing gender disparities in publication records.

BackgroundWomen have entered academic medicine in significant numbers for 4 decades and now comprise 20% of full-time faculty. Despite this, women have not reached senior positions in parity with men. We sought to explore the gender climate in academic medicine as perceived by representatives to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Group on Women in Medicine and Science (GWIMS) and Group on Diversity and Inclusion (GDI).MethodsWe conducted a qualitative analysis of semistructured telephone interviews with GWIMS and GDI representatives and other senior leaders at 24 randomly selected medical schools of the 1995 National Faculty Study. All were in the continental United States, balanced for public/private status and AAMC geographic region. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and organized into content areas before an inductive thematic analysis was conducted. Themes that were expressed by multiple informants were studied for patterns of association.ResultsFive themes were identified: (1) a perceived wide spectrum in gender climate; (2) lack of parity in rank and leadership by gender; (3) lack of retention of women in academic medicine (the "leaky pipeline"); (4) lack of gender equity in compensation; and (5) a disproportionate burden of family responsibilities and work-life balance on women's career progression.ConclusionsKey informants described improvements in the climate of academic medicine for women as modest. Medical schools were noted to vary by department in the gender experience of women, often with no institutional oversight. Our findings speak to the need for systematic review by medical schools and by accrediting organizations to achieve gender equity in academic medicine.

The purpose of this workshop was to bring together diverse stakeholders from the breast cancer research community to discuss critical issues related to disparities in breast cancer care and to identify potential strategies for reducing disparities and inequities in care through research. The workshop format included a series of formal content presentations, participation in break out groups that focused on specific topics highlighted in the content presentations, reporting back of findings and a facilitated discussion that focused on shaping a research agenda. The workshop members concluded that numerous groups of women are at increased risk for disparities in breast cancer care: many patients and survivors suffer disproportionately from inadequate access to high-quality diagnosis and treatment, resulting in more frequent and severe adverse outcomes from the disease. Research on breast cancer disparities provides a major opportunity for reducing the burden of breast cancer. Thus, it is important for the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and other research funders to consider how to best promote research focused on ensuring breast cancer health equity.

ObjectiveThe purpose of this research was to examine the knowledge and perceptions of family leave policies and practices among senior leaders including American Association of Medical College members of the Group on Women in Medicine and Science (GWIMS) to identify perceived barriers to career success and satisfaction among female faculty.MethodsIn 2011 and 2012, GWIMS representatives and senior leaders at 24 medical schools were invited to participate in an interview about faculty perceptions of gender equity and overall institutional climate. An inductive, thematic analysis of the qualitative data was conducted to identify themes represented in participant responses. The research team read and reviewed institutional family leave policies for concordance with key informant descriptions.FindingsThere were 22 GWIMS representatives and senior leaders in the final sample. Participants were all female; 18 (82%) were full professors with the remainder being associate professors. Compared with publicly available policies at each institution, the knowledge of nine participants was consistent with policies, was discrepant for six, with the remaining seven acknowledging a lack of knowledge of policies. Four major themes were identified from the interview data: 1) Framing family leave as a personal issue undermines its effect on female faculty success; 2) poor communication of policies impairs access and affects organizational climate; 3) discrepancies in leave implementation disadvantage certain faculty in terms of time and pay; and 4) leave policies are valued and directly related to academic productivity.ConclusionsFamily leave policies are an important aspect of faculty satisfaction and academic success, yet policy awareness among senior leaders is lacking. Further organizational support is needed to promote equitable policy creation and implementation to support women in medical academia.

HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing for all people in jail is recommended by the CDC. In the community, there are barriers to HIV and HCV testing for minoritized people. We examined the relationship between race and infectious diseases (HIV, HCV, syphilis) testing in one Massachusetts jail, Middlesex House of Corrections (MHOC). This is a retrospective analysis of people incarcerated at MHOC who opted-in to infectious diseases testing between 2016–2020. Variables of interest were race/ethnicity, self-identified history of psychiatric illness, and ever having experienced restrictive housing. Twenty-three percent (1,688/8,467) of people who were incarcerated requested testing at intake. Of those, only 38% received testing. Black non-Hispanic (25%) and Hispanic people (30%) were more likely to request testing than white people (19%). Hispanic people (16%, AOR 1.69(1.24–2.29) were more likely to receive a test result compared to their white non-Hispanic (8%, AOR 1.54(1.10–2.15)) counterparts. Black non-Hispanic and Hispanic people were more likely to opt-in to and complete infectious disease testing than white people. These findings could be related to racial disparities in access to care in the community. Additionally, just over one-third of people who requested testing received it, underscoring that there is room for improvement in ensuring testing is completed. We hope our collaborative efforts with jail professionals can encourage other cross-disciplinary investigations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]