Faculty Bibliography

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.

IMPORTANCE:Previous studies have demonstrated racial and ethnic inequities in medical student assessments, awards, and faculty promotions at academic medical centers. Few data exist about similar racial and ethnic disparities at the level of graduate medical education. OBJECTIVE:To examine the association between race and ethnicity and performance assessments among a national cohort of internal medicine residents. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:This retrospective cohort study evaluated assessments of performance for 9026 internal medicine residents from the graduating classes of 2016 and 2017 at Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited internal medicine residency programs in the US. Analyses were conducted between July 1, 2020, and June 31, 2022. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:The primary outcome was midyear and year-end total ACGME Milestone scores for underrepresented in medicine (URiM [Hispanic only; non-Hispanic American Indian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander only; or non-Hispanic Black/African American]) and Asian residents compared with White residents as determined by their Clinical Competency Committees and residency program directors. Differences in scores between Asian and URiM residents compared with White residents were also compared for each of the 6 competency domains as supportive outcomes. RESULTS:The study cohort included 9026 residents from 305 internal medicine residency programs. Of these residents, 3994 (44.2%) were female, 3258 (36.1%) were Asian, 1216 (13.5%) were URiM, and 4552 (50.4%) were White. In the fully adjusted model, no difference was found in the initial midyear total Milestone scores between URiM and White residents, but there was a difference between Asian and White residents, which favored White residents (mean [SD] difference in scores for Asian residents: -1.27 [0.38]; P < .001). In the second year of training, White residents received increasingly higher scores relative to URiM and Asian residents. These racial disparities peaked in postgraduate year (PGY) 2 (mean [SD] difference in scores for URiM residents, -2.54 [0.38]; P < .001; mean [SD] difference in scores for Asian residents, -1.9 [0.27]; P < .001). By the final year 3 assessment, the gap between White and Asian and URiM residents' scores narrowed, and no racial or ethnic differences were found. Trends in racial and ethnic differences among the 6 competency domains mirrored total Milestone scores, with differences peaking in PGY2 and then decreasing in PGY3 such that parity in assessment was reached in all competency domains by the end of training. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:In this cohort study, URiM and Asian internal medicine residents received lower ratings on performance assessments than their White peers during the first and second years of training, which may reflect racial bias in assessment. This disparity in assessment may limit opportunities for physicians from minoritized racial and ethnic groups and hinder physician workforce diversity.

Importance:Diverse research teams are critical to solving complex health problems and producing high-quality medical research. Objective:To examine the associations of student sex and racial and ethnic identity with publication rates during medical school. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cohort study assessed individual-level data of US MD graduates from medical school who matriculated in academic years 2014 to 2015 and 2015 to 2016. Data were obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges and analyzed from October 2021 to January 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures:Outcomes of interest included students' self-reported participation in unique research experiences, number of publications, and computed publications per research experience. Poisson regressions were constructed to determine the association of sex and racial and ethnic identity with research outcomes using adjusted rate ratios (aRRs). Results:Among 31 474 graduates, 15 159 (48.2%) identified as women and 4344 (13.8%) identified as underrepresented in medicine by race and ethnicity (URIM; including American Indian, Alaska Native, Black, Hawaiian Native, Hispanic/Latinx, and Pacific Islander individuals). Students who attended National Institutes of Health (NIH) top 40 research-ranked schools reported higher number of research experiences and publication counts, resulting in a higher publication rate compared with students from non-top 40 schools (median [IQR] 1.60 [1.00-3.00] vs 1.25 [0.50-2.33]; P < .001). Women reported a higher number of research experiences than men but a significantly lower number of publications (top 40 schools: aRR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.87-0.90; non-top 40 schools: aRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.92-0.95). This resulted in a significantly lower publication rate among women (top 40 schools: aRR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.83-0.86; non-top 40 schools: aRR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.90-0.92). Compared with White students, Asian students had higher publication rates at both NIH top 40 schools (aRR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.12) and non-top 40 schools (aRR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.05-1.08), while lower publication rates were reported among Black students (top 40 schools: aRR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.80-0.86; non-top 40 schools: aRR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.95) and Hispanic students attending non-top 40 schools (aRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.95). Conclusions and Relevance:These findings illustrate that inequities in the physician-scientist workforce began early in training and highlight key areas for intervention, such as funding support and mentorship training during undergraduate medical education, that may promote the future success of a diverse physician-scientist workforce.

Importance:Disparities in medical student membership in Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) are well documented. Less is known about Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership and it remains unknown how the intersection of different identities is associated with membership in these honor societies. Objective:To examine the association between honor society membership and medical student race and ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and intersection of identities. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cross-sectional study analyzed data from Association of American Medical Colleges data collection instruments. The study included all students who graduated from Liaison Committee on Medical Education-accredited US medical schools from 2016 to 2019 and completed the Graduation Questionnaire. Data analysis was conducted from January 12 to July 12, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures:Likelihood of AOA and GHHS membership by student race and ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, childhood family income, and intersection of identities. Results:The sample of 50 384 individuals comprised 82 (0.2%) American Indian or Alaska Native, 10 601 (21.0%) Asian, 2464 (4.9%) Black, 3291 (6.5%) Hispanic, 25 (0.1%) Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 30 610 (60.8%) White, 2476 (4.9%) multiracial students, and 834 (1.7%) students of other races or ethnicities. Sex and sexual orientation included 25 672 (51.0%) men and 3078 (6.1%) lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB). Childhood family income comprised 31 758 (60.0%) individuals with $75 000 per year or greater, 8160 (16.2%) with $50 000 to $74 999 per year, 6864 (13.6%) with $25 000 to $49 999 per year, and 3612 (7.2%) with less than $25 000 per year. The sample included 7303 (14.5%) AOA members only, 4925 (9.8%) GHHS members only, and 2384 (4.7%) members of both societies. In AOA, American Indian or Alaska Native (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.25-0.96), Asian (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.45-0.53), Black (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.20-0.30), Hispanic (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.47-0.59), multiracial (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.62-0.77), and other race and ethnicity (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.60-0.88) were underrepresented compared with White students; LGB students (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.83) were underrepresented compared with heterosexual students; and childhood family income $50 000 to $74 999 (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.75-0.86), $25 000 to $49 999 (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.62-0.74), and less than $25 000 (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.53-0.69) were underrepresented compared with greater than or equal to $75 000. In GHHS, Asian students (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.87) were underrepresented compared with White students, female students (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.45-1.65) were overrepresented compared with male students, LGB students (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.23-1.51) were overrepresented compared with heterosexual students, and students with childhood family income $25 000 to $49 999 (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.94) and less than $25 000 (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.66-0.86) were underrepresented compared with those with greater than or equal to $75 000. Likelihood of AOA, but not GHHS, membership decreased as number of marginalized identities increased. Conclusions and Relevance:In this cross-sectional study of US medical students, membership disparities were noted in both AOA and GHHS. However, differences in GHHS existed across fewer identities, sometimes favored the marginalized group, and were not cumulative.