Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: Acad Med. 2018 Nov;93(11):1694–1699. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002146

Table 2.

Unadjusted and Adjusted Models: National Faculty Survey Longitudinal Follow-Up Study of the Effects of Gender on Retention, Rank, and Leadership Positions in Academic Medicine, 2012–2013

Outcomes No. respondents Unadjusted model: odds ratio (95% CI) Model 1: odds ratio (95% CI)a Model 2: odds ratio (95% CI)b
Rank 998 0.59 (0.46, 0.77) 0.57 (0.43, 0.78) 0.77 (0.56, 1.08)
Retention 1,138 0.72 (0.53, 0.97) 0.68 (0.49, 0.94) 0.86 (0.61, 1.19)
Senior leadership 1,201 0.42 (0.31, 0.58) 0.44 (0.32, 0.61) 0.49 (0.35, 0.69)

Abbreviation: CI indicates confidence interval.

a

Model 1: All models included gender and were adjusted for race (white vs. minority). Additionally, candidate variables included in the backward selection process were: specialty (generalists, medical specialists, surgical specialists, and basic scientist faculty), seniority (years since first faculty appointment), effort distribution, marital status, and parental status. The covariates retained were: Rank – race, specialty, and seniority; retention – race and specialty; senior leadership position – race.

b

Model 2: The number of refereed publications in 1995 was added to Model 1.