SheMD Journal Club: Advancing Women Physicians in Academic Medicine: A Scoping Review

This post contains affiliate links. SheMD will make a commission at no extra cost to you should you click the link and make a purchase. Read our disclosure for more info.

Link to Article: https://academic.oup.com/academicmedicine/article/100/7/860/8361580?guestAccessKey=

Why is this article important?

We talk a lot about the “leaky pipeline” in medicine—women entering at equal or higher rates but not advancing at the same pace. Despite growing awareness, the question remains: what actually works to retain and advance women in academic medicine? This study moves beyond describing the problem and instead examines interventions: what has been tried, what has been studied, and where the gaps still exist. That shift, from awareness to action, is what makes this paper worth our attention.

Article Summary

What they looked at: What strategies have been studied to support the advancement of women physicians in academic medicine, and which interventions show evidence of success?

How they measured things:

•  This was a scoping review of the literature across PubMed, Embase, and Scopus, including all studies up to August 2024.

  • 2,813 articles screened

  • 64 studies included

  • Interventions categorized (mentorship, career development programs, coaching, system-level changes, etc.)

  • Outcomes evaluated using Kirkpatrick’s framework (reaction → learning → behavior → results)n

  
  

What were their outcomes:

• Most common interventions:

  • Career development programs (23%)

  • Mentorship programs (16%)

  • Women’s interest groups (11%)

• Most common outcomes measured:

  • Satisfaction (34%)

  • Self-perceived skill improvement (27%)

  • Recruitment/representation (19%)

    
    

• Only 10.9% were randomized controlled trials, highlighting limited high-quality evidence

• Key findings:

  • Career development programs were associated with promotion, leadership advancement, and retention

  • Mentorship improved satisfaction, networking, and academic productivity, but lacked clear evidence of superiority between models

  • System-level interventions (rare) showed the strongest impact on measurable outcomes like hiring, promotion, and retention

  • Very few studies focused on mid- or late-career women (3.1%)

Why do we care about this article?

This paper reinforces something many of us already suspect but now with data: Individual-level interventions alone are not enough.

We’ve invested heavily in:

• Mentorship

• Workshops

• Skill-building programs

And while these matter, they often measure success through:

• Satisfaction

• Confidence

• Self-reported growth

Not:

• Promotion

• Retention

• Leadership attainment

  
  

The interventions that actually moved the needle? System-level changes.

Programs at institutions like Johns Hopkins and Stanford didn’t just “support women”—they:

• Changed hiring practices

• Addressed salary equity

• Built structured advancement pathways

• And importantly, included men in the process.

There are also some important gaps:

• Mid-career women are largely ignored—the exact stage where many leave

• Most studies focus on early-career interventions, despite ongoing disparities later

• Intersectionality is underexplored, with limited analysis by race/ethnicity

• Many studies measure feelings instead of outcomes

  
  

The takeaway:

If we want to fix the pipeline, we have to stop focusing only on helping women navigate a broken system—and start fixing the system itself.

Similar Articles

• Mousa et al. Organizational interventions to advance women in leadership.

  • https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2802673

• Laver et al. Interventions supporting women in academic medicine (systematic review).

  • https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5875640/

• Frisch et al. Professional development programs for women in emergency medicine.

  • https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10958937/