ArticleAEM education and training2022
Building a RAFFT: Impact of a professional development program for women faculty and residents in emergency medicine.
Article in AEM education and training, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Women's professional development programs for emergency physicians: A scoping review.AEM education and training · 2024Article
- Building a RAFFT: Impact of a professional development program for women faculty and residents in emergency medicine.AEM education and training · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Women comprise 28% of faculty in academic departments of emergency medicine (EM) and 11% of academic chairs. Professional development programs for women are key to career success and to prevent pipeline attrition. Within emergency medicine, there is a paucity of outcomes-level data for such programs. Objectives: We aim to measure the impact of a novel structured professional development curriculum and mentorship group (Resident and Faculty Female Tribe, or RAFFT) within an academic department of EM. Methods: This prospective single-center curriculum implementation and evaluation was conducted in the academic year 2020-2021. A planning group identified potential curricular topics using an iterative Delphi process. We developed a 10-session longitudinal curriculum; a postcurriculum survey was conducted to assess the perceived benefit of the program in four domains. Results: A total of 76% of 51 eligible women attended at least one session; for this project we analyzed the 24 participants (47%) who attended at least one session and completed both the pre- and the postsurvey. The majority of participants reported a positive benefit, which aligned with their expectations in the following areas: professional development (79.2%), job satisfaction (83.3%), professional well-being (70.8%), and personal well-being (79.2%). Resident physicians more often reported less benefit than expected compared to fellow/faculty physicians. Median perceived impact on career choice and trajectory was positive for all respondents. Conclusions: Success of this professional development program was measured through a perceived benefit aligning with participant expectations, a positive impact on career choice and career trajectory for participants in each career stage, and a high level of engagement in this voluntary program. Recommendations for the successful implementation of professional development programs include early engagement of stakeholders, the application of data from a program-specific needs assessment, early dissemination of session dates to allow for protected time off, and structured discussions with appropriate identification of presession resources.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.