ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2024
End of Affirmative Action-Who Is Impacted Most? Analysis of Race and Sex Among US Internal Medicine Faculty.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global insights on diversity, equity, and inclusion-perspectives and experiences from musculoskeletal radiologists of the International Skeletal Society DEI Committee.Skeletal radiology · 2025Review
- Faculty diversity trends in physical medicine and rehabilitation by gender, race, and ethnicity in the United States, 1977-2021.PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Doubling Down on Diversity: Enhancing the Recruitment and Retention of Underrepresented Academic Physicians in a Post-affirmative Action Era.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFor over 50 years, the United States (US) used affirmative action as one strategy to increase diversity in higher education including medical programs, citing benefits including training future public and private sector leaders. However, the recent US Supreme Court ending affirmative action in college admissions threatens advancements in the diversity of medical college faculty.
objectiveOur study evaluated the demographic trends in Internal Medicine (IM) faculty in the US by assessing sex and race/ethnicity diversity to investigate who is likely to be impacted most with the end of affirmative action.
designLongitudinal retrospective analysis SUBJECTS: IM faculty from the Association of American Medical Colleges faculty roster from 1966 to 2021 who self-reported sex and ethnicity MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary study measurement was the annual proportion of women and racial/ethnic groups among IM faculty based on academic rank and department chairs.
resultsAlthough racial/ethnic diversity increased throughout the era of affirmative action, African American, Hispanic, and American Indian populations remain underrepresented. White physicians occupied > 50% of faculty positions across academic ranks and department chairs. Among the non-White professors, Asian faculty had the most significant increase in proportion from 1966 to 2021 (0.6 to 16.6%). The percentage of women increased in the ranks of professor, associate professor, assistant professor, and instructor by 19.5%, 27.8%, 25.6%, and 26.9%, respectively. However, the proportion of women and racial/ethnic minority faculty decreased as academic rank increased.
conclusionDespite an increase in the representation of women and racial/ethnic minority IM faculty, there continues to be a predominance of White and men physicians in higher academic ranks. With the end of affirmative action, this trend has the danger of being perpetuated, resulting in decreasing diversity among IM faculty, potentially impacting patient access and health outcomes.
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.