Grisso Jeane Ann, Sammel Mary Dupuis, Rubenstein Arthur H, Speck Rebecca M, Conant Emily F, Scott Patricia, Tuton Lucy Wolf, Westring Alyssa Friede, Friedman Stewart, Abbuhl Stephanie B
1 Perelman School of Medicine and School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania , Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
2 Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania , Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2017 May;26(5):571-579. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2016.6025. Epub 2017 Feb 28.
Given the persistent disparity in the advancement of women compared with men faculty in academic medicine, it is critical to develop effective interventions to enhance women's careers. We carried out a cluster-randomized, multifaceted intervention to improve the success of women assistant professors at a research-intensive medical school.
Twenty-seven departments/divisions were randomly assigned to intervention or control groups. The three-tiered intervention included components that were aimed at (1) the professional development of women assistant professors, (2) changes at the department/division level through faculty-led task forces, and (3) engagement of institutional leaders. Generalized linear models were used to test associations between assignment and outcomes, adjusting for correlations induced by the clustered design.
Academic productivity and work self-efficacy improved significantly over the 3-year trial in both intervention and control groups, but the improvements did not differ between the groups. Average hours worked per week declined significantly more for faculty in the intervention group as compared with the control group (-3.82 vs. -1.39 hours, respectively, p = 0.006). The PhD faculty in the intervention group published significantly more than PhD controls; however, no differences were observed between MDs in the intervention group and MDs in the control group.
Significant improvements in academic productivity and work self-efficacy occurred in both intervention and control groups, potentially due to school-wide intervention effects. A greater decline in work hours in the intervention group despite similar increases in academic productivity may reflect learning to "work smarter" or reveal efficiencies brought about as a result of the multifaceted intervention. The intervention appeared to benefit the academic productivity of faculty with PhDs, but not MDs, suggesting that interventions should be more intense or tailored to specific faculty groups.
鉴于学术医学领域中女性教员与男性教员在职业发展方面存在持续差距，制定有效的干预措施以促进女性职业发展至关重要。我们在一所研究密集型医学院开展了一项整群随机、多方面的干预措施，以提高女性助理教授的成功率。
27个科室/部门被随机分配到干预组或对照组。三层干预措施包括旨在（1）促进女性助理教授的职业发展，（2）通过教员主导的特别工作组在科室/部门层面进行变革，以及（3）促使机构领导者参与。使用广义线性模型来检验分组与结果之间的关联，并对整群设计引起的相关性进行调整。
在为期3年的试验中，干预组和对照组的学术生产力和工作自我效能均有显著提高，但两组之间的改善情况并无差异。与对照组相比，干预组教员每周的平均工作时长下降幅度更大（分别为-3.82小时和-1.39小时，p = 0.006）。干预组的博士教员发表的论文显著多于博士对照组；然而，干预组的医学博士与对照组的医学博士之间未观察到差异。
干预组和对照组的学术生产力和工作自我效能均有显著提高，这可能归因于全校范围的干预效果。尽管学术生产力有类似提高，但干预组工作时长下降幅度更大，这可能反映出学会了“更高效地工作”，或者揭示了多方面干预所带来的效率提升。该干预措施似乎对拥有博士学位的教员的学术生产力有益，但对医学博士教员则不然，这表明干预措施应更加强化或针对特定教员群体进行调整。
