Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges
-
Gender-based bias and conflation of gender and status are root causes of disparities in women's health care and the slow advancement of women to leadership in academic medicine. More than a quarter of women physicians train in internal medicine and its subspecialties, and women physicians almost exclusively constitute the women's health focus within internal medicine. Thus, internal medicine has considerable opportunity to develop women leaders in academic medicine and promote women's health equity. ⋯ They found that the number of these endowed chairs in North America increased from 7 in 2013 to 19 in 2015, and all were held by women. The perceptions of incumbents and other women's health leaders supported the premise that an endowed chair in women's health would increase women's leadership, the institutional stature of women's health, and activities in women's health research, education, and clinical care. Going forward, it will be important to explore why not all recipients perceived that the endowed chair enhanced their own academic leadership, whether providing women's health leaders with fundraising expertise fosters future success in increasing the number of women's health endowed chairs, and how the conflation of gender and status play out (e.g., salary differences between endowed chairs) as the number of endowed chairs in women's health increases.
-
Mentoring is critical for academic success. As science transitions to a team science model, team mentoring may have advantages. The goal of this study was to understand the process, benefits, and challenges of team mentoring relating to career development and research. ⋯ These findings suggest that interdisciplinary/interprofessional team mentoring has many important advantages, but that skills are required to optimally utilize multiple perspectives.
-
Publishing in academic journals is challenging for learners. Those who pass the initial stages of internal review by an editor often find the anonymous peer review process harsh. Academic blogs offer alternate avenues for publishing medical education material. Many blogs, however, lack a peer review process, which some consumers argue compromises the quality of materials published. ⋯ CanadiEM aims to inspire continued participation in, exposure to, and high-quality production of academic writing by promoting the adoption of coached peer review for online educational resources produced by learners.
-
Most medical students use Wikipedia as an information source, yet medical schools do not train students to improve Wikipedia or use it critically. ⋯ If other schools replicate and improve on this initiative, future multi-institution studies could more accurately measure the effect of medical students on Wikipedia, and vice versa.