How Do Academic Medicine Pathways Differ for Underrepresented Trainees and Physicians? A Critical Scoping Review

Abstract

Purpose Academic medicine faces difficulty recruiting and retaining a diverse workforce. The proportion of medical students who are underrepresented in medicine (URiM) is smaller than the proportion of URiMs in the general population, and these numbers worsen with each step up the academic medicine ladder. Previously known as the “leaky pipeline,” this phenomenon may be better understood as disparate “pathways with potholes,” which acknowledges the different structural barriers that URiM trainees and faculty face in academic medicine. This critical scoping review analyzed current literature to determine what variables contribute to the inequitable “pathways and potholes” URiM physicians experience in academic medicine. Method The authors combined scoping review methodology with a critical lens. The comprehensive search strategy used terms about academic medicine, underrepresented groups, and leaving academic medical careers. One reviewer conducted screening, full-text review, and data extraction while in consultation with members of the research team. Data extraction focused on themes related to pathways and potholes, such as attrition, recruitment, and retention in academic medicine. Themes were iteratively merged, and quality of contribution to the field and literature gaps were noted. Results Included papers clustered into attrition, recruitment, and retention. Those pertaining to attrition noted that URiM faculty are less likely to get promoted even when controlling for scholarly output, and a hostile work environment may exacerbate attrition. Recruitment and retention strategies were most effective when multipronged approaches changed every step of the recruitment and promotion processes. Conclusions These studies provide examples of various “potholes” that can affect representation in academic medicine of URiM trainees and faculty. However, only a few studies examined the link between isolating and hostile work environments, the so-called “chilly climate,” and attrition from academic medicine. Understanding these concepts is key to producing the most effective interventions to improve diversity in medicine.