Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
Med Educ Online. 2023 Dec;28(1):2218665. doi: 10.1080/10872981.2023.2218665.
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.
To examine faculty awareness, experiences, and perceptions of sponsorship at a large academic health center.
Anonymous online survey.
Faculty with a ≥50% appointment.
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.
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.
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.
女性和医学及健康科学领域(URiM)中的代表性不足的教职人员在职业发展中面临不平等。职业赞助可能是一种补救措施。很少有研究描述过学术医学中的赞助,也没有在整个机构中进行描述。
在一家大型学术医疗中心中,调查教职人员对赞助的认识、经验和看法。
匿名在线调查。
具有≥50%任命的教职人员。
该调查包含 31 个李克特量表、多项选择、是/否和开放式问题,涉及对赞助概念的熟悉程度;拥有或成为赞助商的经验;收到的具体赞助活动;赞助的影响和满意度;指导和赞助的同时发生;以及对不公平的看法。开放式问题采用内容分析进行分析。
在接受调查的 2900 名教职人员中,有 31%(903/2900)做出了回应,其中 53%(477/903)为女性,10%(95/903)为 URiM。助理教授(91%,269/894)和副教授(182/894;64%)比正教授(38%,329/894)更熟悉赞助;女性(67%,319/488)比男性(62%,169/488)更熟悉;URiM(77%,66/517)比非 URiM 教职人员(55%,451/517)更熟悉。在他们的职业生涯中,大多数人(691 人中有 528 人,76%)都有个人赞助商,并且对他们的赞助感到满意(828 人中有 64%,532 人)。然而,当按性别和 URiM 身份对不同教授职位的教职人员的回应进行分层时,我们观察到可能存在队列效应。此外,55%(718 名受访者中有 398 名)认为女性得到的赞助比男性少,46%(672 名受访者中有 312 名)认为 URiM 教职人员得到的赞助比同行少。我们确定了七个定性主题:赞助的重要性、日益增强的认识和变化、机构偏见和缺陷、得到较少赞助的群体、拥有赞助权力的人、与指导的混淆以及潜在的负面影响。
在一家大型学术医疗中心,大多数受访者报告了对赞助的熟悉程度、获得和满意度。然而,许多人认为存在持续的机构偏见,需要进行系统的变革,以提高赞助的透明度、公平性和影响力。