23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Minority Resident Physicians’ Views on the Role of Race/Ethnicity in Their Training Experiences in the Workplace

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          How do minority resident physicians view the role of race/ethnicity in their training experiences?

          Findings

          This qualitative study of 27 minority resident physicians found that participants described 3 major themes: a daily barrage of microaggressions and bias, minority residents tasked as race/ethnicity ambassadors, and challenges negotiating professional and personal identity while seen as “other.”

          Meaning

          Results of this study suggest that minority residents face extra workplace burdens during a period already characterized by substantial stress, warranting further attention from educators, institutions, and accreditation bodies.

          Abstract

          This qualitative study characterizes how black, Hispanic, and Native American resident physicians experience race/ethnicity in the workplace during their graduate medical education and training.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Black, Hispanic, and Native American physicians remain underrepresented in medicine despite national efforts to increase diversity in the health care workforce. Understanding the unique workplace experiences of minority physicians is essential to inform strategies to create a diverse and inclusive workforce. While prior research has explored the influence of race/ethnicity on the experiences of minority faculty and medical students, there is a paucity of literature investigating how race/ethnicity affects the training experiences of resident physicians in graduate medical education.

          Objective

          To characterize how black, Hispanic, and Native American resident physicians experience race/ethnicity in the workplace.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          Semistructured, in-depth qualitative interviews of black, Hispanic, and Native American residents were performed in this qualitative study. Interviews took place at the 2017 Annual Medical Education Conference (April 12-17, 2017, in Atlanta, Georgia), sponsored by the Student National Medical Association. Interviews were conducted with 27 residents from 21 residency programs representing a diverse range of medical specialties and geographic locations.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          The workplace experiences of black, Hispanic, and Native American resident physicians in graduate medical education.

          Results

          Among 27 participants, races/ethnicities were 19 (70%) black, 3 (11%) Hispanic, 1 (4%) Native American, and 4 (15%) mixed race/ethnicity; 15 (56%) were female. Participants described the following 3 major themes in their training experiences in the workplace: a daily barrage of microaggressions and bias, minority residents tasked as race/ethnicity ambassadors, and challenges negotiating professional and personal identity while seen as “other.”

          Conclusions and Relevance

          Graduate medical education is an emotionally and physically demanding period for all physicians. Black, Hispanic, and Native American residents experience additional burdens secondary to race/ethnicity. Addressing these unique challenges related to race/ethnicity is crucial to creating a diverse and inclusive work environment.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Racial Disparities in Medical Student Membership in the Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Society.

          Previous studies have found racial and ethnic inequities in the receipt of academic awards, such as promotions and National Institutes of Health research funding, among academic medical center faculty. Few data exist about similar racial/ethnic disparities at the level of undergraduate medical education.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Racial and ethnic disparities in faculty promotion in academic medicine.

            Previous studies have suggested that minority medical school faculty are at a disadvantage in promotion opportunities compared with white faculty. To compare promotion rates of minority and white medical school faculty in the United States. Analysis of data from the Association of American Medical Colleges' Faculty Roster System, the official data system for tracking US medical school faculty. A total of 50,145 full-time US medical school faculty who became assistant professors or associate professors between 1980 and 1989. Faculty of historically black and Puerto Rican medical schools were excluded. Attainment of associate or full professorship among assistant professors and full professorship among associate professors by 1997, among white, Asian or Pacific Islander (API), underrepresented minority (URM; including black, Mexican American, Puerto Rican, Native American, and Native Alaskan), and other Hispanic faculty. By 1997, 46% of white assistant professors (13,479/28,953) had been promoted, whereas 37% of API (1123/2997; P<.001), 30% of URM (311/1053, P<.001), and 43% of other Hispanic assistant professors (256/598; P =.07) had been promoted. Similarly, by 1997, 50% of white associate professors (7234/14,559) had been promoted, whereas 44% of API (629/1419; P<.001), 36% of URM (101/280; P<.001), and 43% of other Hispanic (122/286; P =.02) associate professors had been promoted. Racial/ethnic disparities in promotion were evident among tenure and nontenure faculty and among faculty who received and did not receive National Institutes of Health research awards. After adjusting for cohort, sex, tenure status, degree, department, medical school type, and receipt of NIH awards, URM faculty remained less likely to be promoted compared with white faculty (relative risk [RR], 0.68 [99% confidence interval CI, 0.59-0.77] for assistant professors and 0.81 [99% CI, 0.65-0.99] for associate professors). API assistant professors also were less likely to be promoted (RR, 0.91 [99% CI, 0.84-0.98]), whereas API associate professors and other Hispanic assistant and associate professors were promoted at comparable rates. Our data indicate that minority faculty are promoted at lower rates compared with white faculty. JAMA. 2000;284:1085-1092
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Differences in words used to describe racial and gender groups in Medical Student Performance Evaluations

              Purpose The transition from medical school to residency is a critical step in the careers of physicians. Because of the standardized application process–wherein schools submit summative Medical Student Performance Evaluations (MSPE’s)–it also represents a unique opportunity to assess the possible prevalence of racial and gender disparities, as shown elsewhere in medicine. Method The authors conducted textual analysis of MSPE’s from 6,000 US students applying to 16 residency programs at a single institution in 2014–15. They used custom software to extract demographic data and keyword frequency from each MSPE. The main outcome measure was the proportion of applicants described using 24 pre-determined words from four thematic categories (“standout traits”, “ability”, “grindstone habits”, and “compassion”). Results The data showed significant differences based on race and gender. White applicants were more likely to be described using “standout” or “ability” keywords (including “exceptional”, “best”, and “outstanding”) while Black applicants were more likely to be described as “competent”. These differences remained significant after controlling for United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores. Female applicants were more frequently described as “caring”, “compassionate”, and “empathic” or “empathetic”. Women were also more frequently described as “bright” and “organized”. Conclusions While the MSPE is intended to reflect an objective, summative assessment of students’ qualifications, these data demonstrate for the first time systematic differences in how candidates are described based on racial/ethnic and gender group membership. Recognizing possible implicit biases and their potential impact is important for faculty who strive to create a more egalitarian medical community.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                28 September 2018
                September 2018
                28 September 2018
                : 1
                : 5
                : e182723
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
                [2 ]Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
                [3 ]Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut
                [4 ]Department of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: July 18, 2018.
                Published: September 28, 2018. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.2723
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2018 Osseo-Asare A et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Aba Osseo-Asare, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, 1450 Chapel St, New Haven, CT 06511 ( aba.osseo-asare@ 123456yale.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Dr Osseo-Asare had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Dr Osseo-Asare was solely responsible for the final approval of the manuscript and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Concept and design: Osseo-Asare, Balasuriya, Huot, Keene, Berg, Nunez-Smith, Genao, Boatright.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Osseo-Asare, Balasuriya, Keene, Berg, Latimore, Boatright.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Osseo-Asare, Balasuriya, Boatright.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: Osseo-Asare, Balasuriya, Boatright.
                Obtained funding: Osseo-Asare, Huot, Boatright.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Balasuriya, Huot.
                Supervision: Berg, Nunez-Smith, Genao, Boatright.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.
                Funding/Support: This work was supported by funds from Dr Huot.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: Dr Huot critically reviewed the manuscript but was not directly involved in data collection or analysis. Dr Huot funded this study in an effort to better understand the unique experiences of underrepresented minority resident physicians on a national level. Dr Huot sought to learn more about these unique experiences to inform his practices at Yale University and to disseminate these findings to other Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education officials. Dr Huot did not have a role in the collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data but was involved in the design and conduct of the study, as well as preparation, review, the approval of the manuscript, and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Article
                zoi180135
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.2723
                6324489
                30646179
                28faedd0-c104-491f-a103-f576d92c32bc
                Copyright 2018 Osseo-Asare A et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 26 June 2018
                : 17 July 2018
                : 18 July 2018
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Medical Education

                Comments

                Comment on this article