■劳动力多样性是医疗保健团队内部最佳功能不可或缺的一部分。
■为了分析性别,种族,1966年至2021年之间,美国专职学术眼科教师和系主任的排名和领导力的种族趋势。
这项队列研究包括在美国医学院协会注册的全职美国学术眼科教师和系主任。2023年9月对研究数据进行了分析。
■识别医学(URiM)组代表性不足。
■主要结果指标是人口统计(即,性别,种族,和种族)学术教师和系主任之间的变化,以5年为间隔进行评估。这个术语是指白人种族以外的任何种族群体。
■1966年有221名学术医生(27名女性[12.2%];38名少数民族[17.2%];8名西班牙裔,拉丁裔,或西班牙语[3.6%])和到2021年的3158名学术教师(1320名女性[41.8%];1298名少数民族[41.1%];147名西班牙裔,拉丁裔,或西班牙种族[4.7%])。女性的年度比例变化,小人化种族,西班牙裔,拉丁裔,或西班牙种族为每年+0.63%(95%CI,0.53%-0.72%),每年+0.54%(95%CI,0.72%-0.36%),和-0.01%(95%CI,-0.03%至0%),分别。在整个学术队伍中,女性的代表性不足,在更高的梯队中,女性的代表性越来越低,从非教授/讲师角色(时段平均平均差[PA-MD],19.88%;95%CI,16.82%-22.94%)至教授(PA-MD,81.33%;95%CI,78.80%-83.86%)。部门主席的语料库从1977年的77位增长(0位女性;7个少数民族[9.09%];2个西班牙裔,拉丁裔,或西班牙种族[2.60%])到2021年达到104(17名女性[16.35%];22个少数民族[21.15%];4个西班牙裔,拉丁裔,或西班牙种族[3.85%])。对于部门主席,女性比例的年度变化率,小人化种族,西班牙裔,拉丁裔,或西班牙种族为每年+0.32%(95%CI,0.20%-0.44%),每年+0.34%(95%CI,0.19%-0.49%),和每年+0.05%(95%CI,0.02%-0.08%),分别。在教师和系主任中,URiM群体的比例(美洲印第安人或阿拉斯加原住民,黑人或非裔美国人,西班牙裔,和夏威夷原住民或其他太平洋岛民)增长最少。交叉性分析表明,男性和非URiM状态与眼科教师和系主任的更大代表性相关。然而,在眼科教师中,URiM男女在学术阶层之间没有显着差异,而对于部门主席来说,URiM男性和非URiM女性之间的代表性没有差异.
■这项队列研究的结果表明,自1966年以来,劳动力多样性进展缓慢,仅限于较低的学术级别和领导职位。URiM地位和性别的交叉性在代表性趋势中仍然存在。这些结果表明,需要进一步的宣传和干预来增加劳动力的多样性。
UNASSIGNED: Workforce diversity is integral to optimal function within health care teams.
UNASSIGNED: To analyze gender, race, and ethnicity trends in rank and leadership among US full-time academic ophthalmology faculty and department chairs between 1966 and 2021.
UNASSIGNED: This cohort study included full-time US academic ophthalmology faculty and department chairs registered in the Association of American Medical Colleges. Study data were analyzed in September 2023.
UNASSIGNED: Identifying with an underrepresented in medicine (URiM) group.
UNASSIGNED: The main outcome measures were demographic (ie, gender, race, and ethnicity) changes among academic faculty and department chairs, assessed in 5-year intervals. The term minoritized race refers to any racial group other than White race.
UNASSIGNED: There were 221 academic physicians in 1966 (27 women [12.2%]; 38 minoritized race [17.2%]; 8 Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish [3.6%]) and 3158 academic faculty by 2021 (1320 women [41.8%]; 1298 minoritized race [41.1%]; 147 Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish ethnicity [4.7%]). The annual proportional change for women, minoritized race, and Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish ethnicity was +0.63% per year (95% CI, 0.53%-0.72%), +0.54% per year (95% CI, 0.72%-0.36%), and -0.01% (95% CI, -0.03% to 0%), respectively. Women were underrepresented across academic ranks and increasingly so at higher echelons, ranging from nonprofessor/instructor roles (period-averaged mean difference [PA-MD], 19.88%; 95% CI, 16.82%-22.94%) to professor (PA-MD, 81.33%; 95% CI, 78.80%-83.86%). The corpus of department chairs grew from 77 in 1977 (0 women; 7 minoritized race [9.09%]; 2 Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish ethnicity [2.60%]) to 104 by 2021 (17 women [16.35%]; 22 minoritized race [21.15%]; 4 Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish ethnicity [3.85%]). For department chairs, the annual rate of change in the proportion of women, minoritized race, and Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish ethnicity was +0.32% per year (95% CI, 0.20%-0.44%), +0.34% per year (95% CI, 0.19%-0.49%), and +0.05% per year (95% CI, 0.02%-0.08%), respectively. In both faculty and department chairs, the proportion of URiM groups (American Indian or Alaska Native, Black or African American, Hispanic, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander) grew the least. Intersectionality analysis suggested that men and non-URiM status were associated with greater representation across ophthalmology faculty and department chairs. However, among ophthalmology faculty, URiM women and men did not significantly differ across strata of academic ranks, whereas for department chairs, no difference was observed in representation between URiM men and non-URiM women.
UNASSIGNED: Results of this cohort study revealed that since 1966, workforce diversity progressed slowly and was limited to lower academic ranks and leadership positions. Intersectionality of URiM status and gender persisted in representation trends. These findings suggest further advocacy and intervention are needed to increase workforce diversity.