在学术医学中推进女性医生:一项范围审查。

IF 5.3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Neha J Purkey, Peggy Han, Amanda Woodward, Alexis S Davis, Lindsay Johnston, Robin Klein, Catherine D Krawczeski, Kristen T Leeman, Kerri Z Machut, Meghna D Patel, Melissa Scala, Mary E McBride
{"title":"在学术医学中推进女性医生:一项范围审查。","authors":"Neha J Purkey, Peggy Han, Amanda Woodward, Alexis S Davis, Lindsay Johnston, Robin Klein, Catherine D Krawczeski, Kristen T Leeman, Kerri Z Machut, Meghna D Patel, Melissa Scala, Mary E McBride","doi":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000006052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Multiple studies have described higher rates of attrition for women in academic medicine, but actionable strategies to retain women in the field have not been well studied in the current era. This study reviewed the existing literature for studied interventions to support the advancement of women physicians in academic medicine.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A scoping review was conducted by searching the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases for articles describing interventions intended to support women physicians on September 12, 2022, and updated on August 23, 2024. All articles from inception of the databases through the search dates were included. Search terms included female physician, mentoring, leadership, career development, job satisfaction, advancement, and synonyms. Articles related to inequities in patient care, interventions related to nonphysician health care workers, and studies describing sexism without measured solutions were excluded from the analysis. Kirkpatrick's framework for the evaluation of educational programs was used to further classify results by 4 levels of evaluation for an educational or training program: reaction, learning, behavior, and results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 2,813 articles underwent abstract screening and full-text review, with 64 articles included in the final analysis. Seven studies (10.9%) were randomized controlled trials. Only 2 studies (3.1%) specifically examined mid- or late-career women. Career development programs (15 [23.4%]), mentorship programs (10 [15.6%]), and women's interest groups (7 [10.9%]) were the most described interventions. Outcome measures were most commonly satisfaction with the intervention (22 [34.4%]), self-perceived improvement in skills (17 [26.6%]), and representation or recruitment of women into a field (12 [18.8%]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study describes 64 articles of studied interventions to support the advancement of women in medicine. Additional studies are needed and should emphasize rigorous study methods, a focus on institutional solutions, and identifying and targeting the needs of women physicians beyond their early career.</p>","PeriodicalId":50929,"journal":{"name":"Academic Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Advancing Women Physicians in Academic Medicine: A Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"Neha J Purkey, Peggy Han, Amanda Woodward, Alexis S Davis, Lindsay Johnston, Robin Klein, Catherine D Krawczeski, Kristen T Leeman, Kerri Z Machut, Meghna D Patel, Melissa Scala, Mary E McBride\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/ACM.0000000000006052\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Multiple studies have described higher rates of attrition for women in academic medicine, but actionable strategies to retain women in the field have not been well studied in the current era. This study reviewed the existing literature for studied interventions to support the advancement of women physicians in academic medicine.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A scoping review was conducted by searching the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases for articles describing interventions intended to support women physicians on September 12, 2022, and updated on August 23, 2024. All articles from inception of the databases through the search dates were included. Search terms included female physician, mentoring, leadership, career development, job satisfaction, advancement, and synonyms. Articles related to inequities in patient care, interventions related to nonphysician health care workers, and studies describing sexism without measured solutions were excluded from the analysis. Kirkpatrick's framework for the evaluation of educational programs was used to further classify results by 4 levels of evaluation for an educational or training program: reaction, learning, behavior, and results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 2,813 articles underwent abstract screening and full-text review, with 64 articles included in the final analysis. Seven studies (10.9%) were randomized controlled trials. Only 2 studies (3.1%) specifically examined mid- or late-career women. Career development programs (15 [23.4%]), mentorship programs (10 [15.6%]), and women's interest groups (7 [10.9%]) were the most described interventions. Outcome measures were most commonly satisfaction with the intervention (22 [34.4%]), self-perceived improvement in skills (17 [26.6%]), and representation or recruitment of women into a field (12 [18.8%]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study describes 64 articles of studied interventions to support the advancement of women in medicine. Additional studies are needed and should emphasize rigorous study methods, a focus on institutional solutions, and identifying and targeting the needs of women physicians beyond their early career.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50929,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Academic Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Academic Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000006052\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000006052","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:多项研究已经描述了女性在学术医学领域的较高流失率,但在当前时代,保留女性在该领域的可操作策略尚未得到很好的研究。本研究回顾了现有的文献研究干预措施,以支持女医生在学术医学的进步。方法:通过检索PubMed、Embase和Scopus数据库,检索2022年9月12日至2024年8月23日更新的描述旨在支持女性医生的干预措施的文章,进行范围综述。从数据库建立到检索日期的所有文章都包括在内。搜索词包括女医生、指导、领导、职业发展、工作满意度、进步和同义词。与患者护理中的不平等、与非医师卫生保健工作者相关的干预措施以及描述性别歧视但没有测量解决方案的研究相关的文章被排除在分析之外。柯克帕特里克的教育项目评估框架被用来进一步将教育或培训项目的评估结果分为4个层次:反应、学习、行为和结果。结果:共有2813篇文章进行了摘要筛选和全文综述,最终纳入64篇文章。7项研究(10.9%)为随机对照试验。只有2项研究(3.1%)专门调查了职业生涯中后期的女性。职业发展项目(15个[23.4%])、导师项目(10个[15.6%])和女性兴趣小组(7个[10.9%])是被描述最多的干预措施。结果测量最常见的是对干预的满意度(22人[34.4%]),自我感知的技能提高(17人[26.6%]),以及女性进入某一领域的代表性或招募(12人[18.8%])。结论:本研究描述了64篇研究干预措施,以支持妇女在医学上的进步。需要进行更多的研究,并应强调严格的研究方法,注重机构解决办法,并确定和针对女医生早期职业生涯以外的需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Advancing Women Physicians in Academic Medicine: A Scoping Review.

Purpose: Multiple studies have described higher rates of attrition for women in academic medicine, but actionable strategies to retain women in the field have not been well studied in the current era. This study reviewed the existing literature for studied interventions to support the advancement of women physicians in academic medicine.

Method: A scoping review was conducted by searching the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases for articles describing interventions intended to support women physicians on September 12, 2022, and updated on August 23, 2024. All articles from inception of the databases through the search dates were included. Search terms included female physician, mentoring, leadership, career development, job satisfaction, advancement, and synonyms. Articles related to inequities in patient care, interventions related to nonphysician health care workers, and studies describing sexism without measured solutions were excluded from the analysis. Kirkpatrick's framework for the evaluation of educational programs was used to further classify results by 4 levels of evaluation for an educational or training program: reaction, learning, behavior, and results.

Results: A total of 2,813 articles underwent abstract screening and full-text review, with 64 articles included in the final analysis. Seven studies (10.9%) were randomized controlled trials. Only 2 studies (3.1%) specifically examined mid- or late-career women. Career development programs (15 [23.4%]), mentorship programs (10 [15.6%]), and women's interest groups (7 [10.9%]) were the most described interventions. Outcome measures were most commonly satisfaction with the intervention (22 [34.4%]), self-perceived improvement in skills (17 [26.6%]), and representation or recruitment of women into a field (12 [18.8%]).

Conclusions: This study describes 64 articles of studied interventions to support the advancement of women in medicine. Additional studies are needed and should emphasize rigorous study methods, a focus on institutional solutions, and identifying and targeting the needs of women physicians beyond their early career.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Academic Medicine
Academic Medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.50%
发文量
982
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Medicine, the official peer-reviewed journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, acts as an international forum for exchanging ideas, information, and strategies to address the significant challenges in academic medicine. The journal covers areas such as research, education, clinical care, community collaboration, and leadership, with a commitment to serving the public interest.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信