ArticleMedical education online2023
Faculty knowledge, actions, and perceptions of sponsorship: an institutional survey study.
Article in Medical education online, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Breaking Through the Glass Ceiling: Recommendations for Promoting Sponsorship to Guide Equitable Career Advancement.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Career Advancement Challenges for Women in Tenure Versus Clinical Tracks in Academic Medicine: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Beyond mentorship: the promise and perils of sponsorship in health professions education research.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2026Article
- Sponsorship and Career Advancement for Asian Medical Faculty.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- A Practical Guide to Identifying a Supportive Work Environment for Underrepresented Faculty in Academic Medicine.ATS scholar · 2024Article
- Does Sponsorship Promote Equity in Career Advancement in Academic Medicine? A Scoping Review.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Article
- A dual approach to addressing gaps in scholar diversity in aging research.Gerontology & geriatrics educationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWomen and underrepresented in medicine and the health sciences (URiM) faculty face inequities in advancement. Career sponsorship may be a remedy. Few studies have described sponsorship in academic medicine and none across an institution.
objectiveTo examine faculty awareness, experiences, and perceptions of sponsorship at a large academic health center.
designAnonymous online survey.
participantsFaculty with a ≥50% appointment. MAIN MEASURES: The survey contained 31 Likert, multiple-choice, yes/no, and open-ended questions about familiarity with the concept of sponsorship; experience of having or being a sponsor; receipt of specific sponsorship activities; sponsorship impact and satisfaction; mentorship and sponsorship co-occurrence; and perception of inequities. Open-ended questions were analyzed using content analysis. KEY
resultsThirty-one percent of the surveyed faculty (903/2900) responded of whom 53% (477/903) were women and 10% (95/903) were URiM. Familiarity with sponsorship was higher among assistant (91%, 269/894) and associate (182/894; 64%) professors versus full professors (38%, 329/894); women (67%, 319/488) versus men (62%, 169/488); and URiM (77%, 66/517) versus non-URiM faculty (55%, 451/517). A majority had a personal sponsor (528/691; 76%) during their career and were satisfied with their sponsorship (64%, 532/828). However, when responses from faculty of different professorial ranks were stratified by gender and URiM identity, we observed possible cohort effects. Furthermore, 55% (398/718) of respondents perceived that women received less sponsorship than men and 46% (312/672) that URiM faculty received less than their peers. We identified seven qualitative themes: sponsorship importance, growing awareness and change, institutional biases and deficiencies, groups getting less sponsorship, people with sponsorship power, conflation with mentorship, and potential for negative impact.
conclusionsA majority of respondents at a large academic health center reported sponsorship familiarity, receipt, and satisfaction. Yet many perceived persistent institutional biases and the need for systematic change to improve sponsorship transparency, equity, and impact.
Indexed as
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.