The positive impact of a facilitated peer mentoring program on academic skills of women faculty

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In academic medicine, women physicians lag behind their male counterparts in advancement and promotion to leadership positions. Lack of mentoring, among other factors, has been reported to contribute to this disparity. Peer mentoring has been reported as a successful alternative to the dyadic mentoring model for women interested in improving their academic productivity. We describe a facilitated peer mentoring program in our institution's department of medicine.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Nineteen women enrolled in the program were divided into 5 groups. Each group had an assigned facilitator. Members of the respective groups met together with their facilitators at regular intervals during the 12 months of the project. A pre- and post-program evaluation consisting of a 25-item self-assessment of academic skills, self-efficacy, and academic career satisfaction was administered to each participant.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>At the end of 12 months, a total of 9 manuscripts were submitted to peer-reviewed journals, 6 of which are in press or have been published, and another 2 of which have been invited to be revised and resubmitted. At the end of the program, participants reported an increase in their satisfaction with academic achievement (mean score increase, 2.32 to 3.63; <it>P </it>= 0.0001), improvement in skills necessary to effectively search the medical literature (mean score increase, 3.32 to 4.05; <it>P </it>= 0.0009), an improvement in their ability to write a comprehensive review article (mean score increase, 2.89 to 3.63; <it>P </it>= 0.0017), and an improvement in their ability to critically evaluate the medical literature (mean score increased from 3.11 to 3.89; <it>P </it>= 0.0008).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This facilitated peer mentoring program demonstrated a positive impact on the academic skills and manuscript writing for junior women faculty. This 1-year program required minimal institutional resources, and suggests a need for further study of this and other mentoring programs for women faculty.</p

Tixagevimab–cilgavimab for treatment of patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

Background: Tixagevimab–cilgavimab is a neutralising monoclonal antibody combination hypothesised to improve outcomes for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. We aimed to compare tixagevimab–cilgavimab versus placebo, in patients receiving remdesivir and other standard care. Methods: In a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, placebo-controlled trial, adults with symptoms for up to 12 days and hospitalised for COVID-19 at 81 sites in the USA, Europe, Uganda, and Singapore were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous tixagevimab 300 mg–cilgavimab 300 mg or placebo, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care. Patients were excluded if they had acute organ failure including receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, vasopressor therapy, mechanical circulatory support, or new renal replacement therapy. The study drug was prepared by an unmasked pharmacist; study participants, site study staff, investigators, and clinical providers were masked to study assignment. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery up to day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home after hospital discharge, with co-primary analyses for the full cohort and for participants who were neutralising antibody-negative at baseline. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as participants who received a complete or partial infusion of tixagevimab–cilgavimab or placebo. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978 and the participant follow-up is ongoing. Findings: From Feb 10 to Sept 30, 2021, 1455 patients were randomly assigned and 1417 in the primary modified intention-to-treat population were infused with tixagevimab–cilgavimab (n=710) or placebo (n=707). The estimated cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 89% for tixagevimab–cilgavimab and 86% for placebo group participants at day 90 in the full cohort (recovery rate ratio [RRR] 1·08 [95% CI 0·97–1·20]; p=0·21). Results were similar in the seronegative subgroup (RRR 1·14 [0·97–1·34]; p=0·13). Mortality was lower in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab group (61 [9%]) versus placebo group (86 [12%]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·50–0·97]; p=0·032). The composite safety outcome occurred in 178 (25%) tixagevimab–cilgavimab and 212 (30%) placebo group participants (HR 0·83 [0·68–1·01]; p=0·059). Serious adverse events occurred in 34 (5%) participants in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab group and 38 (5%) in the placebo group. Interpretation: Among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 receiving remdesivir and other standard care, tixagevimab–cilgavimab did not improve the primary outcome of time to sustained recovery but was safe and mortality was lower. Funding: US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Operation Warp Speed

AMWA IGNITE: A Novel Program for Medical Students Addressing the Unique Challenges Faced by Women in Medicine

Background: Women physicians are more likely than their male counterparts to experience gender discrimination, sexual harassment, role conflict, burn out, and issues related to reproduction. Currently, there is no medical school program that addresses these challenges. AMWA Ignite was developed by female physicians to educate medical students on ways to enhance their careers, navigate the challenges women are more likely to experience, and help mitigate burnout. Objectives: To develop a curriculum, research opportunities, and coaching for medical students that explores and offers solutions to the unique challenges faced by women physicians in training. Methods/Research: Two US medical school American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA) chapters participated in the pilot study: Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan and Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Arizona. AMWA Ignite offers three modes of engagement: Curriculum: Expert faculty present topics including reproductive life planning, resilience, sexual harassment, financial wellness, mentorship, intersectionality, and navigating male-dominated specialties. Topics are determined by the individual chapters with the help of a faculty champion. The modules vary between didactic lectures, case presentations, physician panels, small group discussions, and role playing. Content refinement occurs through pre- and post-session participant surveys. Attendance has been considerable and initial feedback has been positive. Survey results are undergoing analysis and will be available for future presentation. Research: The modules stimulate ideas for research topics that students can pursue with a faculty advisor. The research component aims to mentor students through the scientific method. Mentorship: This program has developed one-on-one and group coaching for women, utilizing technology to allow long-distance mentorship. Conclusions/Impact: AMWA Ignite is an innovative sex and gender specific program that aims to address challenges faced by women physicians. Preliminary data from surveyed medical students has shown interest in this program, which will begin its expansion phase in the academic year 2020-2021.https://jdc.jefferson.edu/sexandgenderhealth/1012/thumbnail.jp