■女性在医学和健康科学(URiM)教师中的代表性不足面临着进步的不平等。职业赞助可能是一种补救措施。很少有研究描述学术医学的赞助,也没有一个机构。
■为了检查教师的意识,经验,以及对大型学术健康中心赞助的看法。
■匿名在线调查。
■聘任≥50%的教师。
■调查包括31个李克特,多项选择,是/否,以及关于熟悉赞助概念的开放式问题;拥有或成为赞助商的经验;收到特定赞助活动;赞助影响和满意度;指导和赞助共现;以及对不平等的看法。使用内容分析对开放式问题进行分析。
■接受调查的教师中有31%(903/2900)回答,其中53%(477/903)是女性,10%(95/903)是URiM。助理对赞助的熟悉程度更高(91%,269/894)和副教授(182/894;64%)教授与正式教授(38%,329/894);妇女(67%,319/488)与男性(62%,169/488);和URiM(77%,66/517)与非URiM教师(55%,451/517)。大多数人在职业生涯中有个人赞助商(528/691;76%),并且对他们的赞助感到满意(64%,532/828)。然而,当不同教授级别的教师的回答按性别和URiM身份分层时,我们观察到可能的队列效应.此外,55%(398/718)的受访者认为女性获得的赞助少于男性,而46%(312/672)的URiM教师获得的赞助少于同龄人。我们确定了七个定性主题:赞助重要性,不断增长的意识和变化,制度偏见和缺陷,团体获得较少的赞助,有赞助权的人,与导师混为一谈,和潜在的负面影响。
■大型学术健康中心的大多数受访者表示熟悉赞助,收据,和满意度。然而,许多人认为持续存在的制度偏见和需要进行系统变革以提高赞助透明度,股本,和影响。
UNASSIGNED: Women and underrepresented in medicine and the health sciences (URiM) faculty face inequities in
advancement. Career sponsorship may be a remedy. Few studies have described sponsorship in academic medicine and none across an institution.
UNASSIGNED: To examine faculty awareness, experiences, and perceptions of sponsorship at a large academic health center.
UNASSIGNED: Anonymous online survey.
UNASSIGNED: Faculty with a ≥50% appointment.
UNASSIGNED: The survey contained 31 Likert, multiple-choice, yes/no, and open-ended questions about familiarity with the concept of sponsorship; experience of having or being a sponsor; receipt of specific sponsorship activities; sponsorship impact and satisfaction; mentorship and sponsorship co-occurrence; and perception of inequities. Open-ended questions were analyzed using content analysis.
UNASSIGNED: Thirty-one percent of the surveyed faculty (903/2900) responded of whom 53% (477/903) were women and 10% (95/903) were URiM. Familiarity with sponsorship was higher among assistant (91%, 269/894) and associate (182/894; 64%) professors versus full professors (38%, 329/894); women (67%, 319/488) versus men (62%, 169/488); and URiM (77%, 66/517) versus non-URiM faculty (55%, 451/517). A majority had a personal sponsor (528/691; 76%) during their career and were satisfied with their sponsorship (64%, 532/828). However, when responses from faculty of different professorial ranks were stratified by gender and URiM identity, we observed possible cohort effects. Furthermore, 55% (398/718) of respondents perceived that women received less sponsorship than men and 46% (312/672) that URiM faculty received less than their peers. We identified seven qualitative themes: sponsorship importance, growing awareness and change, institutional biases and deficiencies, groups getting less sponsorship, people with sponsorship power, conflation with mentorship, and potential for negative impact.
UNASSIGNED: A majority of respondents at a large academic health center reported sponsorship familiarity, receipt, and satisfaction. Yet many perceived persistent institutional biases and the need for systematic change to improve sponsorship transparency, equity, and impact.