Background: Gender stereotypes in science impede supportive environments for women. Research suggests that women's perceptions of these environments are influenced by stereotype threat (ST): anxiety faced in situations where one may be evaluated using negative stereotypes. This study developed and tested ST metrics for first time use with junior faculty in academic medicine. Methods: Under a 2012 National Institutes of Health Pathfinder Award, Stanford School of Medicine's Office of Diversity and Leadership, working with experienced clinicians, social scientists, and epidemiologists, developed and administered ST measures to a representative group of junior faculty. Results: 174 School of Medicine junior faculty were recruited (62% women, 38% men; 75% assistant professors, 25% instructors; 50% white, 40% Asian, 10% underrepresented minority). Women reported greater susceptibility to ST than did men across all items including ST vulnerability ( p < 0.001); rejection sensitivity ( p = 0.001); gender identification ( p < 0.001); perceptions of relative potential ( p = 0.048); and, sense of belonging ( p = 0.049). Results of career-related consequences of ST were more nuanced. Compared with men, women reported lower beliefs in advancement ( p = 0.021); however, they had similar career interest and identification, felt just as connected to colleagues, and were equally likely to pursue careers outside academia (all p > 0.42). Conclusions: Innovative ST metrics can provide a more complete picture of academic medical center environments. While junior women faculty are susceptible to ST, they may not yet experience all of its consequences in their early careers. As such, ST metrics offer a tool for evaluating institutional initiatives to increase supportive environments for women in academic medicine.

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of feedback reports and feedback reports + external facilitation on completion of life-sustaining treatment (LST) note the template and durable medical orders. This quality improvement program supported the national roll-out of the Veterans Health Administration (VA) LST Decisions Initiative (LSTDI), which aims to ensure that seriously-ill veterans have care goals and LST decisions elicited and documented. Data Sources: Primary data from national databases for VA nursing homes (called Community Living Centers [CLCs]) from 2018 to 2020.Study Design: In one project, we distributed monthly feedback reports summarizing LST template completion rates to 12 sites as the sole implementation strategy. In the second involving five sites, we distributed similar feedback reports and provided robust external facilitation, which included coaching, education, and learning collaboratives. For each project, principal component analyses matched intervention to comparison sites, and interrupted time series/segmented regression analyses evaluated the differences in LSTDI template completion rates between intervention and comparison sites.Data Collection Methods: Data were extracted from national databases in addition to interviews and surveys in a mixed-methods process evaluation.Principal Findings: LSTDI template completion rose from 0% to about 80% throughout the study period in both projects' intervention and comparison CLCs. There were small but statistically significant differences for feedback reports alone (comparison sites performed better, coefficient estimate 3.48, standard error 0.99 for the difference between groups in change in trend) and feedback reports + external facilitation (intervention sites performed better, coefficient estimate À2.38, standard error 0.72).Conclusions: Feedback reports + external facilitation was associated with a small but statistically significant improvement in outcomes compared with comparison sites.

This editorial comments on the article by Thomas M. Gill et al.