ArticleAmerican journal of medicine open2025
Institutional Accountability for Developing the Next Generation of Faculty Leaders.
Article in American journal of medicine open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Faculty retention provides a competitive advantage in an academic medical center. Faculty surveys show that lack of career advancement and leadership opportunities are primary reasons faculty seek employment elsewhere. Leadership roles for faculty are frequently locally maintained and not available for institutional leaders to assess leadership opportunities and gaps, especially for women and race/ethnicity groups underrepresented in academic medicine. Offices of Faculty Affairs, Faculty Development and Health Equity & Inclusion launched a collaboration to frame and define the current state of faculty leadership at one institution. A desired faculty leadership philosophy, best practices, role descriptions, and overall title framework were developed and reviewed with department leaders. Departments identified all current faculty leaders using the title framework, and titles were entered as additional appointments into our human resource database at the faculty level. Baseline demographic analysis of faculty leadership appointments demonstrated a gender and race/ethnicity disparity between the population of faculty and those in leadership roles. With the expanded tracking, the number of faculty leadership roles increased approximately sevenfold. While gender and race/ethnicity gaps closed substantially, the data revealed differences in higher-level leadership roles with more equity in mid-level and emerging roles. Results enhanced awareness of the importance of tracking and evaluating leadership roles at all levels. Consequently, faculty leadership data were translated into real-time data visualizations. Tracking of who holds leadership positions increases accountability for initiatives designed to diversify leadership in an academic medical center, and demonstrates a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
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.