#MeToo in EM: A Multicenter Survey of Academic Emergency Medicine Faculty on Their Experiences with Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment

Introduction: Gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment of female physicians are well documented. The #MeToo movement has brought renewed attention to these problems. This study examined academic emergency physicians’ experiences with workplace gender discrimination and sexual harassment.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of emergency medicine (EM) faculty across six programs. Survey items included the following: the Overt Gender Discrimination at Work (OGDW) Scale; the frequency and source of experienced and observed discrimination; and whether subjects had encountered unwanted sexual behaviors by a work superior or colleague in their careers. For the latter question, we asked subjects to characterize the behaviors and whether those experiences had a negative effect on their self-confidence and career advancement. We made group comparisons using t-tests or chi-square analyses, and evaluated relationships between gender and physicians’ experiences using correlation analyses.Results: A total of 141 out of 352 (40.1%) subjects completed at least a portion of the survey. Women reported higher mean OGDW scores than men (15.4 vs 10.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.6–6.8). Female faculty were also more likely to report having experienced gender-based discriminatory treatment than male faculty (62.7% vs 12.5%; 95% CI, 35.1%-65.4%), although male and female faculty were equally likely to report having observed gender-based discriminatory treatment of another physician (64.7% vs 56.3%; 95% CI, 8.6%-25.5%). The three most frequent sources of experienced or observed gender-based discriminatory treatment were patients, consulting or admitting physicians, and nursing staff. The majority of women reported having encountered unwanted sexual behaviors in their careers, with a significantly greater proportion of women reporting them compared to men (52.9% vs 26.2%, 95% CI, 9.9%-43.4%). The majority of unwanted behaviors were sexist remarks and sexual advances. Of those respondents who encountered these unwanted behaviors, 22.9% and 12.5% reported at least somewhat negative effects on their self-confidence and career advancement.Conclusion: Female EM faculty perceived more gender-based discrimination in their workplaces than their male counterparts. The majority of female and approximately a quarter of male EM faculty encountered unwanted sexual behaviors in their careers.

The Ursinus Weekly, October 2, 1975

Meetings on Perkiomen Valley growth • In memoriam • Gene Shue presents: Year of the Sixers • City planner speaks • Ursinus College appoints Assoc. Prof. of Education • Kane earns Doctorate • Editorial: A different year? • Is there more to life? • New dorms renovated • Saturday Lunch • Forum series opens: Nina Deutsch • Musical notes • Chris Hillman rated • New events at Walnut • Nancy Drew revisited • Alumnus is named to Library post • British history specialist joins Ursinus faculty • Instructor returns to Ursinus • Pa. Dutch Program is success • Instructor appointed to Biology Dept. • Lindback Award presented • Soccer season opens • Ursinus allies with area • Balloons! • Ursinus named a \u2776er • Register now! • Grads elect officers • Yes we can gang didn\u27t • NFC forecast • MAC report • F & M stings Bears 35 - 21https://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/weekly/1041/thumbnail.jp

The state of the Martian climate

60°N was +2.0°C, relative to the 1981–2010 average value (Fig. 5.1). This marks a new high for the record. The average annual surface air temperature (SAT) anomaly for 2016 for land stations north of starting in 1900, and is a significant increase over the previous highest value of +1.2°C, which was observed in 2007, 2011, and 2015. Average global annual temperatures also showed record values in 2015 and 2016. Currently, the Arctic is warming at more than twice the rate of lower latitudes

Multi-ancestry genome-wide association study of gestational diabetes mellitus highlights genetic links with type 2 diabetes

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with increased risk of pregnancy complications and adverse perinatal outcomes. GDM often reoccurs and is associated with increased risk of subsequent diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (T2D). To improve our understanding of the aetiological factors and molecular processes driving the occurrence of GDM, including the extent to which these overlap with T2D pathophysiology, the GENetics of Diabetes In Pregnancy Consortium assembled genome-wide association studies of diverse ancestry in a total of 5485 women with GDM and 347 856 without GDM. Through multi-ancestry meta-analysis, we identified five loci with genome-wide significant association (P < 5 x 10(-8)) with GDM, mapping to/near MTNR1B (P = 4.3 x 10(-54)), TCF7L2 (P = 4.0 x 10(-16)), CDKAL1 (P = 1.6 x 10(-4)), CDKN2A-CDKN2B (P = 4.1 x 10(-9)) and HKDC1 (P = 2.9 x 10(-8)). Multiple lines of evidence pointed to the shared pathophysiology of GDM and T2D: (i) four of the five GDM loci (not HKDC1) have been previously reported at genome-wide significance for T2D; (ii) significant enrichment for associations with GDM at previously reported T2D loci; (iii) strong genetic correlation between GDM and T2D and (iv) enrichment of GDM associations mapping to genomic annotations in diabetes-relevant tissues and transcription factor binding sites. Mendelian randomization analyses demonstrated significant causal association (5% false discovery rate) of higher body mass index on increased GDM risk. Our results provide support for the hypothesis that GDM and T2D are part of the same underlying pathology but that, as exemplified by the HKDC1 locus, there are genetic determinants of GDM that are specific to glucose regulation in pregnancy.Peer reviewe

COVID-19 symptoms at hospital admission vary with age and sex: results from the ISARIC prospective multinational observational study

Background: The ISARIC prospective multinational observational study is the largest cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We present relationships of age, sex, and nationality to presenting symptoms. Methods: International, prospective observational study of 60 109 hospitalized symptomatic patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 recruited from 43 countries between 30 January and 3 August 2020. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships of age and sex to published COVID-19 case definitions and the most commonly reported symptoms. Results: ‘Typical’ symptoms of fever (69%), cough (68%) and shortness of breath (66%) were the most commonly reported. 92% of patients experienced at least one of these. Prevalence of typical symptoms was greatest in 30- to 60-year-olds (respectively 80, 79, 69%; at least one 95%). They were reported less frequently in children (≤ 18 years: 69, 48, 23; 85%), older adults (≥ 70 years: 61, 62, 65; 90%), and women (66, 66, 64; 90%; vs. men 71, 70, 67; 93%, each P &lt; 0.001). The most common atypical presentations under 60 years of age were nausea and vomiting and abdominal pain, and over 60 years was confusion. Regression models showed significant differences in symptoms with sex, age and country. Interpretation: This international collaboration has allowed us to report reliable symptom data from the largest cohort of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Adults over 60 and children admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are less likely to present with typical symptoms. Nausea and vomiting are common atypical presentations under 30 years. Confusion is a frequent atypical presentation of COVID-19 in adults over 60 years. Women are less likely to experience typical symptoms than men

Addressing childcare as a barrier to healthcare access through community partnerships in a large public health system

Objective In our public health system, a survey of reproductive-aged women identified lack of childcare as the most common reason for missing or delaying healthcare. Community-based organisations (CBOs) in our county identified a similar need, so we partnered to develop a hospital-based childcare centre for patients to use during appointments.Methods In a large academic public health system, a partnership with a non-profit childcare CBO was formed to address lack of childcare as a barrier to accessing healthcare. Pilot clinics where no-cost childcare would be offered included obstetrics, gynaecology and medical oncology. Transparent communication from the CBO within the electronic medical record was built to minimally impact clinic workflows. Visual and electronic outreach, including patient portal questionnaires, were created to introduce patients to the services. Personalised clinic staff in-services were performed to introduce the service to clinics and leadership. Continual assessments of workflow were conducted and adjusted based on patient and staff feedback and quality checks. At 12 months, overall utilisation of the service was collected.Results In the first 12 months that no-cost childcare was offered, 175 patients enrolled 271 children into the programme. Ninety-seven percent were women, primarily Hispanic (87/175 (50%)) or black (64/175 (37%)), with an average age of 31.8 years. Of the enrollees, 142/175 (81%) patients made 637 childcare appointments and 119/175 (68%) patients used at least one reservation for 191 children. Most patients were verbally referred by clinic staff for childcare or self-referred for childcare from clinic signage or paperwork. Childcare was requested most frequently for obstetrics and gynaecology appointments

Academic Emergency Medicine Faculty Experiences with Racial and Sexual Orientation Discrimination.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the increasing diversity of individuals entering medicine, physicians from racial and sexual minority groups continue to experience bias and discrimination in the workplace. The objective of this study was to determine the current experiences and perceptions of discrimination on the basis of race and sexual orientation among academic emergency medicine (EM) faculty. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of EM faculty across six programs. Survey items included the Overt Gender Discrimination at Work (OGDW) Scale adapted for race and sexual orientation, and the frequency and source of experienced and observed discrimination. Group comparisons were made using t-tests or chi-square analyses, and relationships between race or sexual orientation, and we evaluated physicians\u27 experiences using correlation analyses. RESULTS: A total of 141 out of 352 (40.1%) subjects completed at least a portion of the survey. Non-White physicians reported higher mean racial OGDW scores than their White counterparts (13.4 vs 8.6; 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference, -7.7 - -2.9). Non-White EM faculty were also more likely to report having experienced discriminatory treatment based on race than were White EM faculty (48.0% vs 12.6%; CI for difference, 16.6% - 54.2%), although both groups were equally likely to report having observed race-based discrimination of another physician. EM faculty who identified as sexual minorities reported higher mean sexual minority OGDW scores than their heterosexual counterparts (11.1 vs 7.1; 95% CI for difference, -7.3 - -0.6). There were no significant differences between sexual minority and heterosexual faculty in their reports of experiencing or observing discrimination based on sexual orientation. CONCLUSION: EM faculty from racial and sexual minority groups perceived more discrimination based on race or sexual orientation in their workplace than their majority counterparts. EM faculty regardless of race or sexual orientation were similar in their observations of discriminatory treatment of another physician based on race or sexual orientation

#MeToo in EM: A Multicenter Survey of Academic Emergency Medicine Faculty on Their Experiences with Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment

Introduction: Gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment of female physicians are well documented. The #MeToo movement has brought renewed attention to these problems. This study examined academic emergency physicians’ experiences with workplace gender discrimination and sexual harassment.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of emergency medicine (EM) faculty across six programs. Survey items included the following: the Overt Gender Discrimination at Work (OGDW) Scale; the frequency and source of experienced and observed discrimination; and whether subjects had encountered unwanted sexual behaviors by a work superior or colleague in their careers. For the latter question, we asked subjects to characterize the behaviors and whether those experiences had a negative effect on their self-confidence and career advancement. We made group comparisons using t-tests or chi-square analyses, and evaluated relationships between gender and physicians’ experiences using correlation analyses.Results: A total of 141 out of 352 (40.1%) subjects completed at least a portion of the survey. Women reported higher mean OGDW scores than men (15.4 vs 10.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.6–6.8). Female faculty were also more likely to report having experienced gender-based discriminatory treatment than male faculty (62.7% vs 12.5%; 95% CI, 35.1%-65.4%), although male and female faculty were equally likely to report having observed gender-based discriminatory treatment of another physician (64.7% vs 56.3%; 95% CI, 8.6%-25.5%). The three most frequent sources of experienced or observed gender-based discriminatory treatment were patients, consulting or admitting physicians, and nursing staff. The majority of women reported having encountered unwanted sexual behaviors in their careers, with a significantly greater proportion of women reporting them compared to men (52.9% vs 26.2%, 95% CI, 9.9%-43.4%). The majority of unwanted behaviors were sexist remarks and sexual advances. Of those respondents who encountered these unwanted behaviors, 22.9% and 12.5% reported at least somewhat negative effects on their self-confidence and career advancement.Conclusion: Female EM faculty perceived more gender-based discrimination in their workplaces than their male counterparts. The majority of female and approximately a quarter of male EM faculty encountered unwanted sexual behaviors in their careers.&nbsp