暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Racialized women clinicians (RWCs) experience the brunt of unfair racial and gendered expectations, which is a direct result of their visible identity. Our study sought to understand how these experiences intersect to impact the personal and professional well-being of RWCs, and their approach to diabetes care.
METHODS: Data were collected from 24 RWCs working within Canadian diabetes care settings, who participated in semi-structured, one-on-one interviews conducted from April 2021 to September 2021. The data were qualitatively analyzed using thematic analysis to develop emergent themes, and interactions were explored using the socioecological model (SEM), adapted to our study context.
RESULTS: We identified three themes: (1) Discordance between self-identity and relational identity impacted how RWCs interacted with others, and how others interacted with them; (2) Tokenistic, \"inclusive\" organizational policies/practices and inherently racist and sexist social norms permitted acts of discrimination and led to the systematic othering and exclusion of RWCs within the workplace; and (3) Differential treatment of RWCs had both positive and negative impacts on participants\' relational, workplace and self-identity. Using the SEM, we also found that differential treatment of RWCs stems from upstream policies, structures, and social norms, percolating through different levels of the SEM, including work environments and communities, which eventually impacts one\'s relational identity, as well as one\'s perception of oneself.
CONCLUSIONS: The differential treatment of RWCs arises predominantly from macro systems of the work environment. The burden to address these disparities must be shifted to the source (i.e., namely systems) by implementing interventions that equitably value diversity efforts, institute policies of accountability and correction of implicit biases, and prioritize an inclusive culture broadly across faculty and leadership.

While great advancements have been made towards gender equality in medicine, disparities between female and male physicians continue to persist. The Journey of Medicine was created as a day-long event of panelists, Q and As, hands on physical exam and suture technique, as well as short quizzes. The goal of the event was to provide education and create a strong network for young, high school women in South Dakota. Survey data showed 100% of women learned \"a lot\" or answered \"yes\" to learning something new. Key comments made from the event included \"It was really informational and enjoyable\" and \"I think you did a fantastic job organizing this event and getting women interested in medical professions.\" We conclude that this event educated students and was well-received. In the future, refining our marketing technique, increasing hands-on activities, and offering additional locations will expand the reach and impact of the event.

OBJECTIVE: The Open Payments Program (OPP), established in 2013 under the Sunshine Act, mandated medical device and pharmaceutical manufacturers to submit records of financial incentives given to physicians for public availability. The study aims to characterize the gap in real general and real research payments between man and woman urologists.
METHODS: The study sample included all urologists in the United States who received at least one general or research payment in the OPP database from 2015 to 2021. Recipients were identified using the National Provider Identifier and National Downloadable File datasets. Payments were analyzed by geography, year, payment type, and years since graduation. Multivariable analysis on odds of being in above the median in terms of money received was done with gender as a covariate. This analysis was also completed for all academic urologists.
RESULTS: There was a total of 15,980 urologists; 13.6% were woman, and 86.4% were man. Compared to man urologists, woman urologists were less likely to be in the top half of total payments received (odds ratio [OR] 0.62) when adjusted for other variables. When looking at academic urologists, 18.1% were woman and 81.9% were man. However, woman academic urologists were even less likely to be in the top 50% of payments received (OR 0.55).
CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to characterize the difference in industry payments between man and woman urologists. The results should be utilized to educate physicians and industry, in order to achieve equitable engagement and funding for woman urologists.

暂无摘要。

Medicine is evolving with increasing feminization and the rise of part-time work. Women now outnumber men among graduates but are underrepresented in leadership roles and in the highest-paid specialties. To meet these economic and organisational challenges, this article proposes a number of courses of action. In addition to an overall increase in the number of medical training places to compensate for retirement and the development of interprofessional integrated care structures, support for academic promotion and management positions for women, as well as an increase in the financial value of professional and non-remunerated activities, are all solutions to be considered. These changes will ensure that medicine is inclusive, efficient and of high quality.
La médecine évolue avec une féminisation croissante et l’émergence de nouveaux modes de travail. Les femmes sont majoritaires parmi les diplômé-es mais sous-représentées aux postes de cadres et dans les spécialités à plus haut revenus. Pour répondre à ces défis économiques et organisationnels, cet article propose des pistes d’actions. En plus d’une augmentation globale des places de formation médicale pour pallier les départs en retraite et du développement de structures interprofessionnelles de soins intégrés, un soutien aux promotions académiques et aux positions de cadres pour les femmes ainsi qu’une revalorisation financière des activités professionnelles et non rémunérées sont autant de solutions à envisager. Ces changements assureront une médecine inclusive, de plus grande efficience et de qualité.

暂无摘要。

UNASSIGNED: Per the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 6.5% of practicing orthopedic surgeons are female and a majority subspecialize in pediatrics, hand, and foot and ankle surgery. The study purpose is to evaluate influences of orthopedic subspecialty selection, specifically factors such as perceived strength, lifestyle, and mentorship influence on subspecialty decisions and to identify if gender plays a role in these perceptions.
UNASSIGNED: An IRB approved cross-sectional study was conducted via email distribution of a REDCapTM survey to U.S. licensed orthopedic surgeons. Data regarding demographics, professional degree, training and current practice location, and perceptions regarding orthopedic surgery was obtained using Likert rating scales. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics with two-tailed student\'s t-tests (α=0.05).
UNASSIGNED: The survey yielded 282 responses (182 females and 100 males). Overall, the distribution of residents (28%), fellows (6%), and attendings (66%) correlates well with the prevalence of each respective physician category in the field of orthopedic surgery. The study demonstrated no difference in subspecialty choice based on mentorship, work-life-balance, career advancement, subspecialty culture, salary potential, family planning, or schedule. However, a statistically significant difference exists regarding stereotypes, perceived strength required, and perception of discrimination from pursuing a specific orthopedic subspecialty. 27% of females and 10% of males reported discouragement from any subspecialty (p<0.05). Adult reconstructive and oncology were most frequently discouraged. Women reported not choosing a subspecialty because of perceived physical demands more often than men (p<0.001). Women reported an increased use of adaptive strategies in the operating room (p<0.001). Women were also more likely to report feeling discouraged from pursuing a subspecialty due to their gender (p<0.001). Both men and women reported mentorship as the most influential factor in subspecialty selection.
UNASSIGNED: Women and men reported different factors were important in their decision of subspecialty. Women were more likely to be discouraged from a subspecialty and experience discrimination based on their perceived strength compared to male peers. Residents, fellows, and attending surgeons valued mentorship as the most influential in their subspeciality choice. This study suggests intrinsic and extrinsic influences that may differentially affect male and female orthopedic surgeons when they choose a subspecialty. Level of Evidence: III.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。