Amplifying Their Voice: Inclusive Healthcare Provider Perspectives to Improve Advancement, Resilience, and Retention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Addressing the issues of workplace advancement, resilience, and retention within medicine is crucial for creating a culture of equity, respect, and inclusivity especially towards women and nonbinary (WNB) providers including advanced practice providers (APPs), most notably those from marginalized groups. This also directly impacts healthcare quality, patient outcomes, and overall patient and employee satisfaction. The purpose of this study was to amplify the voices on challenges faced by WNB providers within a pediatric academic healthcare organization, to rank workplace interventions addressing advancement, resilience, and retention highlighting urgency towards addressing these issues, and, lastly, to provide suggestions on how to improve inclusivity. METHODS: Participants were self-identified WNB providers employed by a pediatric healthcare organization and its affiliated medical university. An eligibility screener was completed by 150 qualified respondents, and 40 WNBs actually participated in study interviews. Interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide to rank interventions targeted at improving equity, with time allotted for interviewees to discuss their personal lives and how individual circumstances impacted their professional experiences. RESULTS: WNB providers called for efficient workflows and reducing uncompensated job demands. Support for family responsibilities, flexible financial/compensation models, and improved job resources all were endorsed similarly. Participants ranked direct supervisor and leader support substantially lower than other interventions. Conclusions: Career mentorship and academic support for WNB individuals are recognized interventions for advancement and retention but were not ranked as top priorities. Respondents focused on personal supports as they relate to family, job resources, and flexible compensation models. Future studies should focus on implementing realistic expectations and structures that support whole lives including professional ambitions, time with family, personal pursuits, and self-care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".