Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Assessing Faculty Diversity in US Medical Schools

884 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Assessing Faculty Diversity in US Medical Schools

  1. 1. Under-Represented Minority FacultyRecruitment Policies in U.S. MedicalSchools: An Environmental ScanElorm F. AvakameJames Guevara, MD, MPH
  2. 2. Project Overview Investigates associations between minority faculty development programs in US medical schools and faculty diversity rates at those schools. Literature Proposal Data Data Manuscript TIMELINE: Review Submission Collection Analysis Publication YOU ARE KEY TERMS: HERE Under-Represented in Medicine (URM) - Racial and ethnic populations underrepresented in the medical profession relative to their numbers in the general population AAMC Faculty Roster System – Database of medical school faculty statistics maintained by Association of American Medical Colleges
  3. 3. Benefits of Faculty Diversity  Diverse provider workforce ◦ Enhanced patient-provider relationship ◦ Underserved populations  Diverse researcher workforce ◦ Diverse perspective on popular areas of study ◦ New research interests  Diverse educator workforce ◦ Increasingly diverse medical student bodySources: “The Challenging Task of Diversifying the Faculty in Academic Medicine” – L. Castillo-Page et al. “Under-Represented Minority Faculty Recruitment Programs in U.S. Medical Schools: An Environmental Scan” – J. Guevara
  4. 4. Barriers to Faculty Diversity  Feelings of social isolation  Demand to do “minority-related activities” ◦ E.g. mentoring, community involvement, committee appointments, etc.  Lower career satisfaction ◦ Minorities less likely to be promoted than non-minorities ◦ Minorities transition out of academia sooner than other facultySource: “The Challenging Task of Diversifying the Faculty in Academic Medicine” – L. Castillo-Page et al.
  5. 5. Faculty Diversity Today Mean Faculty URM Proportion: 8.71% ◦ Range 2% - 35% (HBCUs – 70%) African-American, Native American, Native Hawaiian – US Population: 13.7% African American, Native American, Native Hawaiian – Faculty Population: 3.8% Hispanic – US Population: 16.3% Hispanic – Faculty Population: 4.9% Sources: United States Census 2010, AAMC Faculty Roster System
  6. 6. Faculty Diversity Today RELATIVE DIVERSITY PROPORTIONS (RACIAL/ETHNIC DIVERSITY - 80 2010) 70 60PERCENTAGES 50 % of US Population 40 % of Medical 30 School Faculty Population 20 10 0 Hispanic Caucasian African-American Asian Native American Native Hawaiian DEMOGRAPHIC GROUPS Sources: United States Census 2010, AAMC Faculty Roster System
  7. 7. Faculty Diversity Today RELATIVE DIVERSITY PROPORTIONS (GENDER DIVERSITY – 2010) 70 60 50PERCENTAGES 40 % of US Population 30 % of Medical School Faculty Population 20 10 0 Male Female GENDER Sources: United States Census 2010, AAMC Faculty Roster System
  8. 8. Study Significance Prevalence of faculty diversity programs unknown ◦ Findings will describe percentage of medical schools with faculty diversity programs Association between faculty diversity programs and diversity outcomes unclear ◦ Findings will direct the “next steps” in faculty diversity efforts
  9. 9. Primary Objective“To identify and categorize programs targeting minority faculty development at U.S. medical schools using an environmental scan.” Descriptive aim – no hypotheses Four program domains: mentorship, career development, social support, financial support
  10. 10. Secondary Objective “To determine associations between program domains and minority faculty statistics at U.S. medical schools” HYPOTHESES:A) Factors from each of the four domains will independently be positively associated with the proportion of URM faculty.B) Factors in combination across domains will be more strongly associated with the proportion of URM faculty than factors in isolation.C) These factors will be associated with the proportion of URM faculty separately among both newly recruited faculty and newly promoted faculty.
  11. 11. Methods – Phase III: Data Collection andRecording Website searches Subject recruitment Key informant interviews Interview transcriptions
  12. 12. Methods – Phase IV: Data Analysis Race  Degree ◦ MD, PhD, MD/PhD Sex  Faculty Size (tertiles) Faculty Rank ◦ Small, Medium, Large ◦ Instructor, Asst Professor, Assoc Professor, Professor  School Rank (deciles) ◦ 1st … 10th Track ◦ Tenure, Clinician-Educator,  Region of Country Other ◦ West, South, Midwest, Northeast Department ◦ Clinical, Basic Science, Other  Funding Type ◦ Public, Private
  13. 13. Results
  14. 14. My Roles Data Collection ◦ Subject Recruitment/Interviews ◦ Website searches ◦ Data recording Primary Data Analysis ◦ Summary statistics  United States Census 2010, AAMC Faculty Roster System
  15. 15. What Have I Learned? Thinking cap required! ◦ Avoiding human error ◦ Interview techniques ◦ Solving problems Data as a Second Language Research Rocks!
  16. 16. Special Thanks To: Ms. Joanne Levy ◦ Program Director Mrs. Elisabeth Madden ◦ Assistant Program Director Dr. James Guevara ◦ Principal Investigator Ms. Emem Adanga ◦ Project Supervisor Source: US Census 2010

×