Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32870313›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2020

Trends in Internal Medicine Faculty by Sex and Race/Ethnicity, 1980-2018.

S Michelle Ogunwole, Michael Dill, Karen Jones, Sherita H Golden

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The Future of the US Nephrology Workforce following the End of Affirmative Action.Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2024
    Article
  8. Finding the Potholes in Academic Career Pathways for Underrepresented Groups in Otolaryngology.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2024
    Article
  9. How Do Academic Medicine Pathways Differ for Underrepresented Trainees and Physicians? A Critical Scoping Review.Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Chief Residency Selection in Internal Medicine: Who Is Left Out?Journal of general internal medicine · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

S Michelle OgunwoleDepartment of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Michael DillAssociation of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC.
Karen JonesAssociation of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC.
Sherita H GoldenDepartment of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Increasing diversity in the physician workforce is a fulcrum for reducing health disparities. Efforts to increase the diversity in the internal medicine (IM) workforce may improve health equity among an increasingly diverse population with increasing prevalence of chronic disease. Objectives: To assess diversity trends in the academic IM workforce and evaluate how well these trends reflected medical student diversity and the changing demographic composition of the general population. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of a cross-sectional study analyzed data from January 1, 1980, to December 31, 2018, from the Association of American Medical Colleges Faculty Roster and Applicant Matriculant File, which capture full-time US medical school faculty and matriculants, respectively, and population data through 2017 from the US Census Bureau. Main Outcomes and Measures: The study calculated the proportions of women and individuals from racial/ethnic groups that are traditionally underrepresented in medicine (URM) among IM faculty and faculty in all other clinical departments. These data were compared with the proportions of female and URM matriculants in US medical schools and the proportions of women and individuals from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups in the population. The analysis was stratified by sex, race/ethnicity, and intersections of sex and race/ethnicity. Results: From 1980 to 2018, the absolute number of full-time IM faculty increased from 10 964 to 42 547. Although IM was the department classification with the most women faculty, in 2018 it continued to have a lower proportion of women (n = 17 165 [40.3%]) compared with all other clinical departments (n = 48 936 [43.2%]). Among IM faculty, the percentage of URM faculty members more than doubled during the study period (from 4.1% to 9.7%) but still made up only a small portion of faculty members. The percentage of female matriculants among medical school matriculants increased steadily (from 28.7% in 1980 to 51.6% in 2018) and was nearly identical to their population representation in 2017 (50.7% compared with 50.8%). Although the percentage of URM matriculants had nearly doubled since 1980 (from 11.3% to 18.1%), it still lagged far behind the proportion of individuals in the US population who are members of underrepresented racial/ethnic groups (18.1% vs 31.5% in 2017). Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that progress has been made in diversifying academic IM faculty; however, it does not yet reflect the diversity of medical students or the US population. Continued efforts to increase the diversity of the academic IM workforce are needed.

Indexed as

Cultural DiversityEthnicityFaculty, MedicalHealth WorkforceAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth EquityHumansInternal MedicineMaleQuality ImprovementSchools, MedicalSex FactorsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID32870313
PMCPMC7489836

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.