Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION:Medicine is increasingly influenced by politics, but physicians have historically had lower voter turnout than the general public. Turnout is even lower for younger voters. Little is known about the political interests, voting activity, or political action committee (PAC) involvement of emergency physicians in training. We evaluated EM trainees' political priorities, use of and barriers to voting, and engagement with an emergency medicine (EM) PAC. METHODS:Resident/medical student Emergency Medicine Residents' Association members were emailed a survey between October-November 2018. Questions involved political priorities, perspective on single-payer healthcare, voting knowledge/behavior, and EM PACs participation. We analyzed data using descriptive statistics. RESULTS:Survey participants included 1,241 fully responding medical students and residents, with a calculated response rate of 20%. The top three healthcare priorities were as follows: 1) high cost of healthcare/price transparency; 2) decreasing the number of uninsured; and 3) quality of health insurance. The top EM-specific issue was ED crowding and boarding. Most trainees (70%) were supportive of single-payer healthcare: "somewhat favor" (36%) and "strongly favor" (34%). Trainees had high rates of voting in presidential elections (89%) but less frequent use of other voting options: 54% absentee ballots; 56% voting in state primary races; and 38% early voting. Over half (66%) missed voting in prior elections, with work cited as the most frequent (70%) barrier. While overall, half of respondents (62%) reported awareness of EM PACs, only 4% of respondents had contributed. CONCLUSION:The high cost of healthcare was the top concern among EM trainees. Survey respondents had a high level of knowledge of absentee and early voting but less frequently used these options. Encouragement of early and absentee voting can improve voter turnout of EM trainees. Concerning EM PACs, there is significant room for membership growth. With improved knowledge of the political priorities of EM trainees, physician organizations and PACs can better engage future physicians.

IMPORTANCE:Since 1964, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has funded the Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) MD-PhD program at medical schools across the US to support training physician-scientists. Recent studies have suggested that MSTPs have consistently matriculated more students from racial and ethnic backgrounds historically underrepresented in science than MD-PhD programs without NIH funding; however, the underlying basis for the increased diversity seen in NIH-funded MSTPs is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE:To investigate how administrators and faculty perceive the impact of MSTP status on MD-PhD program matriculant racial and ethnic diversity. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:This qualitative study used a positive deviance approach to identify 9 high-performing and 3 low-performing MSTPs based on the percentage of students underrepresented in science who matriculated into the program between 2014 and 2018. This study, a subanalysis of a larger study to understand recruitment of students underrepresented in science at MSTPs, focused on in-depth qualitative interviews, conducted from October 26, 2020, to August 31, 2022, of 69 members of MSTP leadership, including program directors, associate and assistant program directors, and program administrators. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:The association of NIH funding with institutional priorities, programs, and practices related to MD-PhD program matriculant racial and ethnic diversity. RESULTS:The study included 69 participants (mean [SD] age, 53 [10] years; 38 women [55%]; 13 African American or Black participants [19%], 6 Asian participants [9%], 12 Hispanic participants [17%], and 36 non-Hispanic White participants [52%]). A total of 51 participants (74%) were in administrative roles, and 18 (26%) were faculty involved in recruitment. Five themes emerged from the data: (1) by tying MSTP funding to diversity efforts, the NIH created a sense of urgency among MSTP leadership to bolster matriculant diversity; (2) MD-PhD program leadership leveraged the changes to MSTP grant review to secure new institutional investments to promote recruitment of students underrepresented in science; (3) MSTPs increasingly adopted holistic review to evaluate applicants to meet NIH funding requirements; (4) MSTP leadership began to systematically assess the effectiveness of their diversity initiatives and proactively identify opportunities to enhance matriculant diversity; and (5) although all MSTPs were required to respond to NIH criteria, changes made by low-performing programs generally lacked the robustness demonstrated by high-performing programs. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:This study suggests that NIH funding requirements may be a powerful incentive to promote diversity and positively affect representation of students underrepresented in science in the biomedical scientific workforce.

BACKGROUND:Increasing medical school faculty diversity is an urgent priority. National Institutes of Health (NIH) diversity supplements, which provide funding and career development opportunities to individuals underrepresented in research, are an important mechanism to increase faculty diversity. OBJECTIVE:Analyze diversity supplement utilization by medical schools. DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:All R01 grant-associated diversity supplements awarded to medical schools from 2005 to 2020. Diversity supplements were identified using the publicly available NIH RePORTER database. MAIN MEASURES/METHODS:Main measures were the number of R01-associated diversity supplements awarded to medical schools each year by medical school NIH funding status and the number of R01-associated diversity supplements awarded to individual medical schools in the NIH top 40 by funding status. We also examined the percentage of R01 grants with an associated diversity supplement by NIH funding status and individual medical school in the NIH top 40. KEY RESULTS/RESULTS:From 2005 to 2020, US medical school faculty received 1389 R01-associated diversity supplements. The number of diversity supplements awarded grew from 2012 to 2020, from ten to 187 for top 40 schools, and from seven to 83 for non-top 40 schools. The annual growth rate for diversity supplement awards at NIH top 40 schools (44.2%) was not significantly different than the annual growth rate among non-top 40 schools (36.2%; p = 0.68). From 2005 to 2020, the highest number of diversity supplements that an individual medical school received was 56 and the lowest number was four (mean = 24.6, SD = 11.7). The highest percentage of R01 grants with an associated diversity supplement received by a school was 4.5% and the lowest percentage was 0.79% (mean = 2.3%, SD = 0.98). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Medical schools may be missing an opportunity to address the continuing shortage of individuals historically underrepresented in biomedical science and should consider additional mechanisms to enhance diversity supplement utilization.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Urine drug screens (UDS) have unproven clinical utility in emergency department (ED) chest pain presentations. A test with such limited clinical utility may exponentiate biases in care, but little is known about the epidemiology of UDS use for this indication. We hypothesized that UDS utilization varies nationally across race and gender. METHODS:This was a retrospective observational analysis of adult ED visits for chest pain in the 2011-2019 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. We calculated the utilization of UDS across race/ethnicity and gender and then characterized predictors of use via adjusted logistic regression models. RESULTS:We analyzed 13,567 adult chest pain visits, representative of 85.8 million visits nationally. Use of UDS occurred for 4.6% of visits (95% CI 3.9%-5.4%). White females underwent UDS at 3.3% of visits (95% CI 2.5%-4.2%), and Black females at 4.1% (95% CI 2.9%-5.2%). White males were tested at 5.8% of visits (95% CI 4.4%-7.2%), while Black males were tested at 9.3% of visits (95% CI 6.4%-12.2%). A multivariate logistic regression model including race, gender, and time period shows significantly increased odds of ordering UDS for Black patients (odds ratio [OR] 1.45 (95% CI 1.11-1.90, p = 0.007)) and male patients (OR 2.0 (95% CI 1.55-2.58, p < 0.001) as compared to White patients and female patients. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:We identified wide disparities in the utilization of UDS for the evaluation of chest pain. If UDS were used at the rate observed for White women, Black men would undergo nearly 50,000 fewer tests annually. Future research should weigh the potential of the UDS to magnify biases in care against the unproven clinical utility of the test.

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:Surgical diseases account for approximately 30% of the global burden of disease. Gender diversity in biomedical research is critical to generate innovative patient-centered research in surgery. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To examine the distribution of biomedical research funding by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) among women and men surgeon-scientists during a 25-year period. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:This cross-sectional study used publicly available data from the NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools: Expenditures and Results) database for research project grants awarded to women and men surgeon-scientists who were principal investigators between 1995 and 2020. Data were retrieved between January 20 and March 20, 2022. The representation of women surgeon-scientists among academic surgeons was compared with the representation of men surgeon-scientists over time. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES/UNASSIGNED:Distribution of NIH funding to women and men surgeon-scientists was examined via 2 metrics: holding a large-dollar (ie, R01-equivalent) grant and being a super principal investigator (SPI) with $750 000 or more in total annual research funding. Statistical analysis was performed between April 1 and August 31, 2022. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Between 1995 and 2020, 2078 principal investigator surgeons received funding from the NIH. The proportion of women academic surgeons who were surgeon-scientists remained unchanged during this same period (1995, 14 of 792 [1.8%] vs 2020, 92 of 3834 [2.4%]; P = .10). Compared with their men counterparts, women surgeon-scientists obtained their first NIH grant earlier in their career (mean [SD] years after first faculty appointment, 8.8 [6.2] vs 10.8 [7.9] years; P < .001) and were as likely to obtain large-dollar grants (aRR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.95-1.03]) during the period 2016 to 2020. Despite this success, women surgeon-scientists remained significantly underrepresented among SPIs and were 25% less likely to be an SPI (aRR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.60-0.95] during the period 2016 to 2020). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:The findings of this cross-sectional study of NIH-funded surgeons suggest that women surgeons remained underrepresented among surgeon-scientists over a 25-year period despite early career success in receiving NIH funding. This is concerning and warrants further investigation to increase the distribution of NIH funding among women surgeon-scientists.

IMPORTANCE:Closing the diversity gap is critical to ensure equity in medical education and health care quality. Nevertheless, evidence-based strategies and best practices to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the biomedical workforce remain poorly understood and underused. To improve the culture of DEI in graduate medical education (GME), in 2020 the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) launched the Barbara Ross-Lee, DO, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Award to recognize exceptional DEI efforts in US residency programs. OBJECTIVE:To identify strategies and best practices that exemplary US GME programs use to improve DEI. DESIGN AND SETTING:This qualitative study performed an exploratory content analysis of award applications submitted to the ACGME over 2 cycles in 2020 and 2021, using the constant comparative method. The research team first acknowledged their own biases related to DEI, used caution to not overinterpret the data, and performed several cross-checks during data analysis to ensure confirmability of the results. A preliminary codebook was developed and used during regular adjudication sessions. Disagreements were discussed until agreements were reached. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Foundational (ie, commonly cited, high-impact, and small-effort strategies considered achievable by all programs) and aspirational (ie, potential for high impact but requiring greater effort and investment) DEI strategies used by exemplary GME programs. RESULTS:This qualitative study included 29 award applications submitted between August 17, 2020, and January 11, 2022. Strategies spanned the education continuum from premedical students through faculty. Foundational strategies included working with schools, community colleges, and 4-year college campuses; providing structured support for visiting students; mission-driven holistic review for admissions and selection; interviewer trainings on implicit bias mitigation and on how racism and discrimination impact admission processes and advancement; interview-day DEI strategies; inclusive selection and DEI committees; mission statements that include DEI; and retention efforts to improve faculty diversity. Aspirational strategies included development of longitudinal bidirectional collaborations (eg, articulation agreements, annual workshops, funded rotations and/or research) with organizations working with applicants who were historically excluded and underrepresented in medicine, blinding metrics in residency applications, longitudinal curricula on DEI and health equity, and faculty mentoring such as affinity groups, mentored research, and joint academic-community recruitments. Findings provide residency program leadership with a menu of options at various inflection points to foster DEI within their programs. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:The findings of this qualitative study suggest that GME programs might adopt strategies of exemplary programs to improve DEI in residency, ensure compliance with accreditation standards, and improve health outcomes for all.

IMPORTANCE:Diversity in the biomedical research workforce is essential for addressing complex health problems. Female investigators and investigators from underrepresented ethnic and racial groups generate novel, impactful, and innovative research, yet they are significantly underrepresented among National Institutes of Health (NIH) investigators. OBJECTIVE:To examine the gender, ethnic, and racial distribution of super NIH investigators who received 3 or more concurrent NIH grants. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:This cross-sectional study included a national cohort of NIH-funded principal investigators (PIs) from the NIH Information for Management, Planning, Analysis, and Coordination (IMPAC II) database from 1991 to 2020. EXPOSURES:Self-identified gender, race and ethnicity, annual number of NIH grant receipt, career stage, and highest degree. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Distribution of investigators receiving 3 or more research project grants, referred to as super principal investigators (SPIs), by gender, race, and ethnicity. RESULTS:Among 33 896 investigators in fiscal year 2020, 7478 (22.01%) identified as Asian, 623 (1.8%) as Black, 1624 (4.8%) as Hispanic, and 22 107 (65.2%) as White; 21 936 (61.7%) identified as men; and 8695 (35.3%) were early-stage investigators. Between 1991 and 2020, the proportion of SPIs increased 3-fold from 704 (3.7%) to 3942 (11.3%). However, SPI status was unequal across gender, ethnic, and racial groups. Women and Black PIs were significantly underrepresented among SPIs, even after adjusting for career stage and degree, and were 34% and 40% less likely than their male and White colleagues, respectively, to be an SPI. Black women PIs were the least likely to be represented among SPIs and were 71% less likely to attain SPI status than White men PIs (adjusted odds ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.21-0.41). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:In this cross-sectional study of a national cohort of NIH-funded investigators, the gender, ethnic, and racial gaps in receipt of multiple research project grants among NIH investigators was clearly apparent and warrants further investigation and interventions.

As first generation (FG)/low income (LI) students enter the elite profession of medicine, schools make presumptions about how FGLI students allocate their time. However, their lives are markedly different compared to their peers. This study argues that while all forms of capital are necessary for success, time as a specific form keeps classism in place. Using constructivist grounded theory techniques, we interviewed 48 FGLI students to understand where, why and how they allocated their time, and the perceived impact it had on them. Using open coding and constant comparison, we developed an understanding of FGLI students"™ relationship to time and then contextualized it within larger conversations on how time is conceptualized in a capitalist system that demands time efficiency, and the activities where time is needed in medical school. When students discussed time, they invoked the concept of "˜time famine;"™ having too much to do and not enough time. In attempting to meet medicine"™s expectations, they conceptualized time as something that was "˜spent"™ or "˜given/taken"™ as they traversed different marketplaces, using their time as a form of currency to make up for the social capital expected of them. This study shows that because medical education was designed around the social elite, a strata of individuals who have generational resources, time is a critical aspect separating FGLI students from their peers. This study undergirds the idea that time is a hidden organizational framework that helps to maintain classism, thus positioning FGLI students at a disadvantage.

Background: Racism-related stress is a root cause of racial and ethnic disparities in mental health outcomes. An individual may be exposed to racism directly or vicariously by hearing about or observing people of the same racial and/or ethnic group experience racism. Although the healthcare setting is a venue by which healthcare workers experience both direct and vicarious racism, few studies have assessed the associations between direct and vicarious racism and mental health outcomes among healthcare workers. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we assessed the relationships between direct and vicarious racism and symptoms of posttraumatic stress, depression, and anxiety among healthcare workers in the USA in 2022. Results: Our sample consisted of 259 healthcare workers identifying as a racialized minority, including 68 (26.3%) who identified as mixed-race, 61 (23.6%) East Asian, 36 (13.9%) Black, 33 (12.7%) South Asian, 22 (8.5%) Southeast Asian, 21 (8.1%) Middle Eastern/North African, and 18 (6.9%) another race. The mean age was 37.9 years (SD 10.1). In multivariable linear regression models that adjusted for demographics, work stressors, and social stressors, we found that increased reporting of vicarious racism was associated with greater symptoms of anxiety (B = 0.066, standard error = 0.034, p =.049). We did not identify significant relationships between vicarious and direct racism and symptoms of posttraumatic stress or depression in the fully adjusted models. Conclusions: Our findings should be considered by academic health systems to mitigate the negative impact of racism on healthcare workers"™ mental health.