Development of a Low-Cost, Easy-to-Adopt Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Program During Crisis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ankeny CJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9170120 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Development of a Low-Cost, Easy-to-Adopt Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Program During Crisis.
Ankeny Casey J CJ Dunton Cody C Virk Ranya R Scott Evan E Kamat Neha N
Biomedical engineering education 20220606 2
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesTo increase diversity and inclusion in graduate medical education (GME), the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) issued new diversity standards requiring programs to engage in practices that focus on systematic recruitment and retention of a diverse workforce of trainees and faculty. The literature on how program directors (PDs) can incorporate and prepare for this standard is limited.MethodsWe developed a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) toolkit for PDs as an example of an institutional GME-led effort to promote inclusive recruitment and DEI awareness among residency and fellowship programs at a large academic center.ResultsA survey was sent to 80 PDs before the launch of the toolkit and 6 months afterwards with response rates of 27% (22/80) and 97% (78/80), respectively. At baseline, 45% (10/22) anticipated that the DEI toolkit might provide better resources than those currently available to them and 41% (9/22) perceived that the toolkit might improve recruitment outcomes. At 6 months, 63% (49/78) found the toolkit helpful in the 2021-2022 recruitment season. By contrast, 2% (2/78) of PDs did not find the toolkit helpful, and 33% (26/78) said they did not access the toolkit. When asked if a PD changed their program's recruitment practices because of the toolkit, 31% (24/78) responded yes. Programs that changed recruitment practices started to require unconscious bias training for all faculty and residents involved in the residency interviews and ranking. Others worked on creating a standardized scoring rubric for interviews focused on four main domains: Experiences, Attributes, Competencies, and Academic Metrics.ConclusionThere is a need to support PDs in their DEI journey and their work to recruit a diverse workforce in medicine. Utilizing a DEI toolkit is one option to increase DEI knowledge, skills, awareness, and self-efficacy among PDs and can be adopted by other institutions and leaders in academic medicine.
| S-EPMC10563453 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAcademic medicine needs more diverse leadership from racial/ethnic minorities, women, people with disabilities, and LGBTQIA+ physicians. Longitudinal structural support programs that bring together underrepresented in medicine (UiM) and non-UiM trainees are one approach to build leadership and scholarship capacity in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).ObjectiveTo describe the creation, satisfaction with, and feasibility of a Leadership Education in Advancing Diversity (LEAD) Program and evaluate scholars' changes in self-efficacy, intended and actual behavior change, and outputs in leadership and DEI scholarship.MethodsIn 2017, we created the LEAD Program, a 10-month longitudinal, single institution program that provides residents and fellows ("scholars") across graduate medical education (GME) with leadership training and mentorship in creating DEI-focused scholarship. In the first 3 cohorts (2017-2020), we assessed scholars' self-efficacy, actual and planned behavior change, and program satisfaction using IRB-approved, de-identified retrospective pre-/post-surveys. We measured scholarship as the number of workshops presented and publications developed by the LEAD scholars. We used descriptive statistics and paired 2-tailed t tests to analyze the data.ResultsSeventy-five trainees completed LEAD; 99% (74 of 75) completed the retrospective pre-/post-surveys. There was statistically significant improvement in scholars' self-efficacy for all learning objectives. All trainees thought LEAD should continue. LEAD scholars have created workshops and presented at local, regional, and national conferences, as well published their findings. Scholars identified the greatest benefits as mentorship, developing friendships with UiM and ally peers outside of their subspecialty, and confidence in public speaking.ConclusionsLEAD is an innovative, feasible GME-wide model to improve resident and fellow self-efficacy and behaviors in DEI scholarship and leadership.
| S-EPMC8672828 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHistorically in medicine, women and minorities have been underrepresented. This trend is especially significant in the anesthesiology workforce.ObjectiveThe goals of this study were to quantify the current state of diversity by race/ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation among anesthesiology residents.MethodsAn institutionally reviewed and validated survey was delivered through Qualtrics to 130 anesthesiology program directors. Topics addressed included gender identity, sexual orientation, racial and ethnic background, rationale for pursuing anesthesiology, and medical training experiences. The study was administered from February to April 2021; 135 anesthesiology residents responded to the survey.ResultsThe sample was 44.4% white (n = 60), 54.1% male (n = 73), and 83.7% (n = 113) of respondents self-reported as straight or heterosexual. Respondents indicated that role models/mentors were somewhat or very important in their desire to pursue anesthesiology (n = 85; 67.2%), 42% reported that having women/diverse faculty was somewhat or very important in their decision to pursue anesthesiology. Discrimination during the anesthesiology residency application process or as a resident ranged from 4.4% due to sexual orientation to 18.7% due to gender/gender identity and race/ethnicity.ConclusionsExperiences of discrimination based on race/ethnicity, gender, and gender identity continues to be a concern among anesthesiology trainees. Creating an environment that is inclusive and supportive of all trainees regardless of race/ethnicity, gender/gender identity, and sexual orientation is needed. Interventions and strategies to create an inclusive environment may improve diversity within anesthesiology.
| S-EPMC9081057 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn nearly all areas of academic medicine, disparities still exist for women and underrepresented minorities (URMs).ObjectivesDevelop a strategic plan for advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); implement and evaluate the plan, specifically focusing on compensation, recruitment, and policies.Design, setting, participantsProgrammatic evaluation conducted in the division of hospital medicine (DHM) at a major academic medical center involving DHM faculty and staff.Measurements(1) Development and implementation of strategic plan, including policies, processes, and practices related to key components of DEI program; (2) assessment of specific DEI outcomes, including plan implementation, pre-post salary data disparities based on academic rank, and pre-post disparities for protected time for similar roles.ResultsUsing information gathered from a focus group with DHM faculty, an iterative strategic plan for DEI was developed and deployed, with key components of focus being institutional structures, our people, our environments, and our core mission areas. A director of DEI was established to help oversee these efforts. Using a two-phase approach, salary disparities by rank were eliminated. Internally funded protected time was standardized for leadership roles. A data dashboard has been developed to track high-level successes and areas for future focus.ConclusionUsing a systematic evidence-based approach with key stakeholder involvement, a division-wide DEI strategy was developed and implemented. While this work is ongoing, short-term wins are possible, in particular around salary equity and development of policies and structures to promote DEI.
| S-EPMC9514373 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9527539 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDiversity, equity, and inclusion pertaining to race, ethnicity, and related concepts have historically been underrepresented in clinical trials for pharmaceutical drug development, although this is an increasing topic for regulators, payers, and patient advocacy groups. We aimed to develop a summary statistical measure to assess such representativeness.MethodsA statistical measure using population demographic parameters derived from performance metrics through verbal autopsy research was proposed for using population frameworks in the UK. The summary measure, R-index, was demonstrated using simulation data with population frameworks from the UK (116 Roche UK clinical trials 2013-2022) and then using published clinical trial results (NCT02366143 [March 1, 2015-September 15, 2017], NCT04368728 [July 27, 2020-October 9, 2020], and NCT04470427 [July 27, 2020-November 25, 2020]). R-index was further proposed for use with benchmarking performance in representative trial development for internal processes, external benchmarking, and performance tracking in clinical trial development.FindingsR-index was derived from a standardized statistical measure called the L1 norm, or Manhattan distance, and then normalized to the maximum theoretical error observed in some populations using population framework or ontology for reporting concepts such as race, ethnicity, and other dimensions of diversity used to characterize patient cohorts. R-index demonstrated desirable qualities in demonstration simulations, including a range of 0-1, ease of calculation and use, and interpretability and flexibility, as data standards in the space of inclusive research continue to develop.InterpretationR-index is an interpretable, accessible summary statistic that may be useful for tracking and benchmarking representativeness in inclusive research and related domains. R-index is adaptable to different population frameworks and ontologies across different settings and considerations in terms of underlying population variables.FundingF. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc.
| S-EPMC11833413 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionWomen and ethnic minorities are underrepresented at all levels of training and practice in urology residency programs. Equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) is a growing field of interest in medical research and business literature, especially regarding recruitment. The objective of this review was to evaluate evidence-based strategies to increase EDI to improve urology residency recruitment.MethodsA review was conducted using Ovid Medline to identify publications reporting strategies to increase women and underrepresented minorities (URM ) in healthcare fields. An evaluation of business models was incorporated. Identified strategies were sorted and ranked based on how many papers reported an increased proportion of women or URM in their program following implementation.ResultsWe assessed 234 publications from 1972-2022. Eleven underwent full review. Six additional pieces of business literature were reviewed and incorporated. The following methods were most often identified to increase diversity: mentorship and holistic application review (six publications), as well as funded internship programs and diverse selection committees (four publications). Diversity statements and application blinding were highlighted by multiple business sources but were each only reviewed in one medical publication.ConclusionsRecommendations identified include mentorship, holistic application review by diverse selection committees with bias training, and development of funded internship programs. Standardized questions and rubrics were also well-studied. Business strategies, such as publishing diversity statements and application blinding, are less studied in medical education literature. This study is unique in its inclusion of both medical and business literature and highlights concrete strategies for urology residency programs to increase EDI during recruitment.
| S-EPMC10426422 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Journals have been described as "duty bearers" of upholding fundamental ethical principles that are essential for maintaining the ethical integrity of newly generated and disseminated knowledge. To play our part, we evaluated diversity and inclusion in the leadership and management of global and international health journals. We developed Journal Diversity Index (JDI) to measure three parameters of diversity and representation (gender, geographic, socioeconomic status). Relevant information regarding editorial board members of systematically screened journals was sequentially extracted and job titles were categorized into five editorial roles. Chi-squared test was utilized to study associations between gender and geographic distribution of editors along with the Medline indexing of the journal and its impact factor. Out of 43 journals included, 62.7% were published from two high-income countries. Women comprised 44% of the total editors. Among all the editorial board members, we did not find any information suggesting the representation of non-binary and transgender individuals. Furthermore, 68.2% of editors were based in high-income countries with 67.3% of the editors belonging to the Global North. This disparity in geographic region and socioeconomic level was observed across all five editorial roles. Among all women editors, more than 70% worked in non-Medline and non-impact factor journals. Only two journals scored "excellent" on JDI. Despite the continuous evolution of the definition of global health ethics, marginalized individuals, and their perspectives remain underrepresented in this field. Thus, we call for swift action regarding the decentralization and redistribution of global and international health journal editorial boards.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41649-023-00243-8.
| S-EPMC10018626 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose: The Harold Amos Medical Faculty Development Program (AMFDP), a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, seeks to support academic physicians from historically disadvantaged backgrounds and serves as a model program for promoting faculty diversity and health equity. Our objective was to determine differences in scientific productivity, promotions and retentions, and leadership attainment among faculty applicants to this national minority faculty development program. Methods: Final-round interview applicants from 2003 to 2008 were selected. Differences in publications, grants, promotions/retentions, and leadership positions through 2013 were compared between funded scholars and unfunded nonscholars. Semistructured interviews were conducted to identify factors that facilitated and hindered academic success. Results: A total of 124 applicants (76 scholars and 48 nonscholars) who participated in final-round interviews from 2003 to 2008 were eligible. Scholars and nonscholars had similar number of publications. Scholars had greater number of grants and grant dollars, but differences were not significant after accounting for AMFDP program awards. Scholars were more likely to hold leadership positions (28% vs. 10%, p=0.02), but equally likely to be promoted (67% vs. 58%, p=0.32) and retained (84% vs. 75%, p=0.21). In interviews, all participants endorsed mentoring, funding, and nonscientific education to academic success, but scholars reported greater availability of leadership opportunities consequent to AMFDP. Conclusion: There were few differences in academic productivity attributable to a national faculty diversity program. However, program participants were more likely to endorse and attain leadership positions. Academic institutions should consider facilitating leadership development of minority faculty as a means of advancing health equity research and training.
| S-EPMC6071893 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A lack of diversity in genomics for health continues to hinder equitable leadership and access to precision medicine approaches for underrepresented populations. To avoid perpetuating biases within the genomics workforce and genomic data collection practices, equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) must be addressed. This paper documents the journey taken by the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (a genomics-based standard-setting and policy-framing organization) to create a more equitable, diverse, and inclusive environment for its standards and members. Initial steps include the creation of two groups: the Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Advisory Group and the Regulatory and Ethics Diversity Group. Following a framework that we call "Reflected in our Teams, Reflected in our Standards," both groups address EDI at different stages in their policy development process.
| S-EPMC10589617 | biostudies-literature