Samantha E Kaplan1, Anita Raj, Phyllis L Carr, Norma Terrin, Janis L Breeze, Karen M Freund. 1. S.E. Kaplan is assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology and assistant dean for diversity and multicultural affairs, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. A. Raj is professor of medicine and global public health and director, Center on Gender Equity and Health, Division of Global Public Health, School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, California. P.L. Carr is associate physician, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. N. Terrin is professor of medicine and director of biostatistics, epidemiology, and research design, Tufts Clinical Translational Science Institute and Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. J.L. Breeze is instructor of medicine and epidemiologist in biostatistics, epidemiology, and research design, Tufts Clinical Translational Science Institute and Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. K.M. Freund is professor and vice chair of medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To understand differences in productivity, advancement, retention, satisfaction, and compensation comparing underrepresented medical (URM) faculty with other faculty at multiple institutions. METHOD: A 17-year follow-up was conducted of the National Faculty Survey, a random sample from 24 U.S. medical schools, oversampled for URM faculty. The authors examined academic productivity, advancement, retention, satisfaction, and compensation, comparing white, URM, and non-URM faculty. Retention, productivity, and advancement data were obtained from public sources for nonrespondents. Covariates included gender, specialty, time distribution, and years in academia. Negative binomial regression was used for count data, logistic regression for binary outcomes, and linear regression for continuous outcomes. RESULTS: In productivity analyses, advancement, and retention, 1,270 participants were included; 604 participants responded to the compensation and satisfaction survey. Response rates were lower for African American (26%) and Hispanic faculty (39%) than white faculty (52%, P < .0001). URM faculty had lower rates of peer-reviewed publications (relative number 0.64; 95% CI: 0.51, 0.79), promotion to professor (OR = 0.53; CI: 0.30, 0.93), and retention in academic medicine (OR = 0.49; CI: 0.32, 0.75). No differences were identified in federal grant acquisition, senior leadership roles, career satisfaction, or compensation between URM and white faculty. CONCLUSIONS: URM and white faculty had similar career satisfaction, grant support, leadership, and compensation; URM faculty had fewer publications and were less likely to be promoted and retained in academic careers. Successful retention of URM faculty requires comprehensive institutional commitment to changing the academic climate and deliberative programming to support productivity and advancement.
PURPOSE: To understand differences in productivity, advancement, retention, satisfaction, and compensation comparing underrepresented medical (URM) faculty with other faculty at multiple institutions. METHOD: A 17-year follow-up was conducted of the National Faculty Survey, a random sample from 24 U.S. medical schools, oversampled for URM faculty. The authors examined academic productivity, advancement, retention, satisfaction, and compensation, comparing white, URM, and non-URM faculty. Retention, productivity, and advancement data were obtained from public sources for nonrespondents. Covariates included gender, specialty, time distribution, and years in academia. Negative binomial regression was used for count data, logistic regression for binary outcomes, and linear regression for continuous outcomes. RESULTS: In productivity analyses, advancement, and retention, 1,270 participants were included; 604 participants responded to the compensation and satisfaction survey. Response rates were lower for African American (26%) and Hispanic faculty (39%) than white faculty (52%, P < .0001). URM faculty had lower rates of peer-reviewed publications (relative number 0.64; 95% CI: 0.51, 0.79), promotion to professor (OR = 0.53; CI: 0.30, 0.93), and retention in academic medicine (OR = 0.49; CI: 0.32, 0.75). No differences were identified in federal grant acquisition, senior leadership roles, career satisfaction, or compensation between URM and white faculty. CONCLUSIONS: URM and white faculty had similar career satisfaction, grant support, leadership, and compensation; URM faculty had fewer publications and were less likely to be promoted and retained in academic careers. Successful retention of URM faculty requires comprehensive institutional commitment to changing the academic climate and deliberative programming to support productivity and advancement.
Authors: Linda H Pololi; Arthur T Evans; Brian K Gibbs; Edward Krupat; Robert T Brennan; Janet T Civian Journal: Acad Med Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Karen M Freund; Anita Raj; Samantha E Kaplan; Norma Terrin; Janis L Breeze; Tracy H Urech; Phyllis L Carr Journal: Acad Med Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Marcella Nunez-Smith; Maria M Ciarleglio; Teresa Sandoval-Schaefer; Johanna Elumn; Laura Castillo-Page; Peter Peduzzi; Elizabeth H Bradley Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Karen L Cropsey; Saba W Masho; Rita Shiang; Veronica Sikka; Susan G Kornstein; Carol L Hampton Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Mohamed Boutjdir; Ademuyiwa S Aromolaran; Lisa de Las Fuentes; Josephine E A Boyington; Sonia S Arteaga; Jared Jobe; Donna B Jeffe; D C Rao; Treva K Rice; Victor G Davila-Roman Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2019-04-16 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Lori Brand Bateman; Laura Heider; Selwyn M Vickers; William A Anderson; Anthony C Hood; Evelyn Jones; Corilyn Ott; Sequoya Eady; Mona N Fouad Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-01-27 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Jeannette E South-Paul; Kendall M Campbell; Norma Poll-Hunter; Audrey J Murrell Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-05 Impact factor: 3.390