Narrowing the gap in careers in clinical research and academia for healthcare professionals A scoping review on the role of major funding bodies in the UK

Main Article Content

Carlos Curtis-Lopez
Daniel Robinson
Manasi Shirke
Catherine Dominic
Shivani Sharma
Anindita Roy
Sunil Daga
Rakesh Patel

Abstract

Differential attainment (DA) exists in research and academia, where individuals with protected characteristics face barriers to progression at different stages from selection in training or career pathways through to obtaining funding and getting research published. The causes of DA are multifactorial, however, more barriers are associated with an individual’s gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability or other social and economic factors rather than academic factors related to research. DA is seen across medicine and healthcare therefore it is likely a manifestation of wider inequalities experienced by these individuals within a society. This scoping review takes a first step at exploring DA through the lens of equality, diversity and inclusion in research and academia, specific to healthcare professionals in medicine, in the UK. Given the paucity of published data, benchmarking and investigation of the causes of DA and access in this area, this review seeks to identify what published reports exploring this issue reveal. There has been mixed success in the area of gender equality with the Athena Swan benchmarking exercise; however differences in outcomes exist within gender when other protected characteristics, such as ethnicity, are also explored. The DA observed among women despite the Athena Swan programme demonstrates other factors such as allyship, apprenticeship, sponsorship and mentoring which may be accessible to some individuals, but not others. Furthermore, ethnicity appears to be a barrier to accessing this form of support, and non-Black and minority ethnic women appear to be more privileged to receiving this type of support. Without more research into the lived experiences of individuals from non-traditional backgrounds at the micro-level, as well as data across the career progression pathway overtime at the macro-level, the problem of DA is unlikely to improve. If anything, lack of openness and transparency around such data at an organisational level, may exacerbate the sense of injustice within research and academia among individuals with protected characteristics, especially given that the perceived sense of DA is very real for them. The purpose of this paper is to start the conversation with stakeholders within research and academia, about DA and commence the process of reducing the gap using equality, diversity and inclusion as fundamental concepts for achieving a level playing field for all. This type of accountability is essential for developing trust and in the system. Such open conversations need to happen across every organisation, that is a stakeholder of research and academia in the UK.

Article Details

How to Cite
Curtis-Lopez, C., Robinson, D., Shirke, M., Dominic, C., Sharma, S., Roy, A., Daga, S., & Patel, R. (2020). Narrowing the gap in careers in clinical research and academia for healthcare professionals: A scoping review on the role of major funding bodies in the UK. Sushruta Journal of Health Policy & Opinion, 14(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.38192/14.1.3
Section
Articles
Author Biographies

Anindita Roy, University of Oxford, MRC Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, Oxford, UK

Associate Professor

Sunil Daga, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK

Consultant Nephrologist & Hon Secretary, Bapio Institute for Health Research, Bedford, UK

Rakesh Patel, University of Nottingham, UK

Professor of Medical Education

References

1. Dangerfield P. Every doctor a scientist and a scholar. 2015;(April).
2. Nathan DG. Careers in translational clinical research - Historical perspectives, future challenges. J Am Med Assoc. 2002;287(18):2424–7.
3. AlShebli BK, Rahwan T, Woon WL. The preeminence of ethnic diversity in scientific collaboration. Nat Commun. 2018;9:1–10.
4. Vassie C, Smith S, Leedham-Green K. Factors impacting on retention, success and equitable participation in clinical academic careers: A scoping review and meta-thematic synthesis. BMJ Open. 2020;10(3):1–13.
5. Unit D. Equality, diversity and inclusion [Internet]. British Council. 2017. Available from: https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/equality-policy-2017.pdf
6. Equality Act 2010, Chapter 15 [Internet]. legislation.gov.uk. 2010. Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/pdfs/ukpga_20100015_en.pdf
7. Carethers JM. Diversification in the medical sciences fuels growth of physician-scientists. J Clin Invest. 2019;129(12):5051–4.
8. Nielsen W, Alegria S, Börjeson L, Falk-krzesinski HJ, Joshi A, Leahey E, et al. Gender diversity leads to better science. PNAS. 2017;114(13).
9. Jones BF, Weinberg BA. Age dynamics in scientific creativity. PNAS. 2011;108(47).
10. Jones BF, Wuchty S. Multi-University Research Teams: Shifting Impact, Geography, and Stratification in Science. Science (80- ). 2008;322:1259–63.
11. Østergaard CR, Timmermans B, Kristinsson K. Does a different view create something new? The effect of employee diversity on innovation. Res Policy. 2011;40(3):500–9.
12. Hong L, Page SE. Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. PNAS. 2004;101(46):16385–9.
13. Clinical Academic Careers Framework : A framework for optimising clinical academic careers across healthcare professions. 2014.
14. Ovseiko P V, Taylor M, Gilligan RE, Birks J, Elhussein L, Rogers M, et al. Effect of Athena SWAN funding incentives on women’s research leadership. Br Med J. 2020;371:1–5.
15. AdvanceHE. Equality + higher education Staff statistical report 2019. 2019.
16. A picture of the UK scientific workforce - Diversity data analysis for the Royal Society. 2014.
17. Xiao Y, Pinkney E, Au TKF, Yip PSF. Athena SWAN and gender diversity: A UK-based retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(2).
18. Bhopal K. UK’s white female academics are being privileged above women – and men – of colour [Internet]. The Guardian. 2020 [cited 2020 Nov 5]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/jul/28/uks-white-female-academics-are-being-privileged-above-women-and-men-of-colour
19. Solanke I. Black Female Professors in the UK (March 2017). 2017;(March):3.
20. Eckstrand KL, Eliason J, St. Cloud T, Potter J. The Priority of Intersectionality in Academic Medicine. J Assoc Am Med Coll. 2016;91(7):904–7.
21. A picture of the UK scientific workforce: Interactive chart [Internet]. The Royal Society. [cited 2020 Nov 5]. Available from: https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/diversity-in-science/uk-scientific-workforce-report/interactive-chart/#
22. Watson N, Tang P, Knight E. Survey of Medical Clinical Academic Staffing Levels. Med Sch Counc. 2018;(July).
23. The state of medical education and practice in the UK 2018. 2018.
24. UKRI. Medical Research Council - success rates 2017/2018 [Internet]. [cited 2020 Nov 5]. Available from: https://mrc.ukri.org/research/funded-research/success-rates/#grant
25. Grant funding data report 2018/19 [Internet]. Available from: https://wellcome.org/sites/default/files/grant-funding-data-2018-2019.pdf
26. Diversity in Grant Awarding and Recruitment at Wellcome. Bridg Gr. 2017;(May 2017).
27. Chakravorty I, Daga S, Chakravorty S, Bamrah J., Mehta R. Protocol for Thematic Synthesis of Differential Attainment in the Medical Profession - ‘Bridging the Gap’ Series. Sushruta J Heal Policy Opin. 2020;13(3).
28. Levac D, Colquhon H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(69).
29. Kirkevold M. Integrative nursing research - An important strategy to further the development of nursing science and nursing practice. J Adv Nurs. 1997;25(5):977–84.
30. Mays N, Pope C, Popay J. Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. J Heal Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(SUPPL. 1):6–20.
31. Greenhalgh T, Thorne S, Malterud K. Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? Eur J Clin Invest. 2018;48(6):1–6.
32. UK Research and Innovation. Diversity results for UKRI funding data 2014-15 to 2018-19. 2020.
33. Promoting equality, diversity and inclusion in research [Internet]. National Institute for Health Research. 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 20]. Available from: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/about-us/our-contribution-to-research/equality-diversity-and-inclusion.htm
34. NIHR stands by Black Lives Matter [Internet]. National Institute for Health Research. 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 17]. Available from: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/news/nihr-stands-by-black-lives-matter/25039?pr=
35. Santos G, Dang Van Phu S. Gender and Academic Rank in the UK. Sustainability. 2019;11:1–46.
36. Penny M, Jeffries R, Grant J, Davies SC, Europe R, Centre W, et al. Women and academic medicine : a review of the evidence on female representation. R Soc Med. 2014;107(7):259–63.
37. Medical Schools Council. Women in Clinical Academia. London; 2007.
38. Medical Research Council. A Cross-Funder Review of Early-Career Clinical Academics: Enablers and Barriers to Progression. 2015.
39. Ranieri V, Barratt H, Fulop N, Rees G. Factors that influence career progression among postdoctoral clinical academics: a scoping review of the literature. BMJ Open. 2016;1–7.
40. Dickinson J, Scott J, Edwards P. 2017 UK-Wide Survey of Clinical and Health Research Fellowships. 2017.
41. Crabtree SA, Shiel C. “ Playing Mother ”: Channeled Careers and the Construction of Gender in Academia. SAGE Open. 2019;
42. Brown JVE, Crampton PES, Finn GM, Morgan JE. From the sticky floor to the glass ceiling and everything in between : protocol for a systematic review of barriers and facilitators to clinical academic careers and interventions to address these , with a focus on gender inequality. Syst Rev. 2020;9(26).
43. Woolf K, Potts H, Mcmanus IC. Ethnicity and academic performance in UK trained doctors and medical students : systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2011;
44. Race in equality in the NHS: A statement from the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges. Academy of Medical Royal Colleges; 2020.
45. Etherton M, Hillier N. Annual Diversity Report 2018/19. 2019.
46. HESA. All staff (excluding atypical) by equality characteristics 2018/19. 2019.
47. Summerskill B. A 2020 vision – An independent report into diversity and inclusion at the Royal College of Physicians. 2020.
48. Esmail A, Roberts C. Independent Review of the Membership of the Royal College of General Practitioners (MRCGP) examination. 2013.
49. Royal College of Physicians. Research for all? An analysis of clinical participation in research. 2020.
50. Banaji MR, Greenwald AG. Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People. New York: Bantam Books; 2016.
51. Beattie G, Cohen D, Mcguire L. An exploration of possible unconscious ethnic biases in higher education: The role of implicit attitudes on selection for university posts. Semiotica. 2013;(197):171–201.
52. Beattie G, Johnson P. Possible unconscious bias in recruitment and promotion and the need to promote equality. Perspect Policy Pract High Educ. 2012;16(1):7–13.
53. Bhopal K. White priviledge: The myth of a post-racial society. Policy Press; 2018.
54. AdvanceHE. AdvanceHE’s Race Equality Charter [Internet]. [cited 2020 Nov 21]. Available from: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/equality-charters/race-equality-charter
55. Adams R. Universities urged to close “degree gap” between black and white students. The Guardian. 2019 May;
56. Woolf K, Cave J, Greenhalgh T, Dacre J. Ethnic stereotypes and the underachievement of UK medical students from ethnic minorities : qualitative study. 2008;337(September).
57. Roberts C, Atkins S, Hawthorne K. Performance features in clinical skills assessment: Linguistic and cultural factors in the Membership of the Royal College of General Practitioners examination. 2014.
58. Wakeford R. International medical graduates’ relative under-performance in the MRCGP AKT and CSA examinations. Educ Prim Care. 2012;23(3):148–52.

Most read articles by the same author(s)