A systematic review of interventions to support the careers of women in academic medicine and other disciplines

Abstract

ObjectiveTo summarise quantitative evaluations of interventions designed to support the careers of women in academia of any discipline.MethodA systematic search of English entries in PubMed, CINAHL and Google Scholar was conducted in September 2017. Methodological quality of the studies was independently assessed by two authors using the Joanna Briggs Institute quality appraisal checklists. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity in methods and outcomes; results were synthesised and displayed narratively.ResultsEighteen eligible studies were identified, mostly evaluating programmes in academic medicine departments. The most common interventions were mentoring, education, professional development and/or networking programmes. All programmes took a ‘bottom-up’ approach in that women were responsible for opting into and devoting time to participation. Study quality was low overall, but all studies reported positive outcomes on at least one indicator. Most often this included improvements in self-rated skills and capabilities, or satisfaction with the programme offered. Results regarding tangible outcomes were mixed; while some studies noted improvements in promotion, retention and remuneration, others did not.ConclusionsThis review suggests that targeted programmes have the potential to improve some outcomes for women in academia. However, the studies provide limited high-quality evidence to provide information for academic institutions in terms of the best way to improve outcomes for women in academia. The success of an intervention appears to be undermined when it relies on the additional labour of those it is intending to support (ie, ‘bottom-up’ approaches). As such, academic institutions should consider and evaluate the efficacy of ‘top-down’ interventions that start with change in practice of higher management.

Gender Disparities in Academic Emergency Medicine: Strategies for the Recruitment, Retention, and Promotion of Women

“…Prior literature has highlighted successful programmatic interventions for the advancement of women in academic medicine . A literature review by Laver and colleagues summarized findings, citing 18 studies that evaluated dedicated programming for women in academic medicine. Many programs were tailored to women at specific career stages and most commonly focused on mentoring, education, and professional development.…”

“…Data on more objective outcomes, i.e., promotion and retention, were mixed, pointing to the need for further research on institutional‐level strategies that would increase the promotion and advancement of women. Not surprisingly, a few studies assessed educational interventions on gender bias in hiring practices and demonstrated an enhanced awareness of gender bias after program implementation . Overall, some of the strategies described in the literature were flawed as they placed additional burden on individual faculty rather than targeting institutional‐level strategies.…”

Trends in gender composition on editorial boards in leading medicine, nursing, and pharmacy journals

“…1,9 Research has also shown that women in academia lack adequate mentorship and role models, which are known barriers to professional development and promotion for women. 17,18 Therefore, the presence of women in important and influential positions within the health care field is paramount to ensuring that mentoring opportunities are available for other women with similar aspirations. The National Research Mentoring Network and similar consortiums have attempted to facilitate diversity and inclusivity among biomedical professions.…”

From the sticky floor to the glass ceiling and everything in between: protocol for a systematic review of barriers and facilitators to clinical academic careers and interventions to address these, with a focus on gender inequality

“…However, their systematic review also revealed that it is important how these interventions are delivered. Bottom-up approaches, which place the onus largely on the individual wishing to progress their career, were less successful [16]. Our review aims to expand on these findings by using a more comprehensive search strategy and taking into account discrimination and biases based on characteristics other than gender, as well.…”