Advertisement

Diversity, equity, and inclusion in gastroenterology and hepatology: a survey of where we stand

  • Author Footnotes
    ∗ Authors share co-first authorship.
    Harman K. Rahal
    Footnotes
    ∗ Authors share co-first authorship.
    Affiliations
    Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California–Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California

    Karsh Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California

    Vatche and Tamar Manoukian Division of Digestive Diseases, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California–Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    ∗ Authors share co-first authorship.
    James H. Tabibian
    Footnotes
    ∗ Authors share co-first authorship.
    Affiliations
    Vatche and Tamar Manoukian Division of Digestive Diseases, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California–Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California

    Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Olive View-UCLA Medical Center, Sylmar, California
    Search for articles by this author
  • Rachel B. Issaka
    Affiliations
    Clinical Research and Public Health Sciences Divisions, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington

    Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington
    Search for articles by this author
  • Sandra Quezada
    Affiliations
    Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
    Search for articles by this author
  • Darrell M. Gray II
    Affiliations
    Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
    Search for articles by this author
  • Sophie Balzora
    Affiliations
    Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
    Search for articles by this author
  • Liu Yang
    Affiliations
    Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California–Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California

    Vatche and Tamar Manoukian Division of Digestive Diseases, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California–Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
    Search for articles by this author
  • Jayraan Badiee
    Affiliations
    Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California–Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California

    Vatche and Tamar Manoukian Division of Digestive Diseases, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California–Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
    Search for articles by this author
  • Folasade P. May
    Correspondence
    Reprint requests: Folasade P. May, MD, PhD, MPhil, UCLA Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Equity, 650 Charles Young Drive South, Room A2-125 CHS, Los Angeles, California 90095-6900.
    Affiliations
    Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California–Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California

    Vatche and Tamar Manoukian Division of Digestive Diseases, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California–Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California

    UCLA Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Equity, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California–Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California

    Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    ∗ Authors share co-first authorship.
Open AccessPublished:October 11, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2022.08.029

      Background & Aims

      In the setting of increasing attention to representation in medicine, we aimed to assess current perspectives of racial and ethnic workforce diversity and health care disparities among gastroenterology (GI) and hepatology professionals in the United States.

      Methods

      We developed and administered a 33-item electronic cross-sectional survey to members of 5 national GI and hepatology societies. Survey items were organized into thematic modules and solicited perspectives on racial and ethnic workforce diversity, health care disparities in GI and hepatology, and potential interventions to enhance workforce diversity and improve health equity.

      Results

      Of the 1219 survey participants, 62.3% were male, 48.7% were non-Hispanic White, and 19.9% were from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine. The most frequently reported barriers to increasing racial and ethnic diversity in GI and hepatology were insufficient representation of underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups in the education and training pipeline (n = 431 [35.4%]), in professional leadership (n = 340 [27.9%]), and among practicing GI and hepatology professionals (n = 324 [26.6%]). Suggested interventions were to increase career mentorship opportunities (n = 545 [44.7%]), medical student opportunities (n = 520 [42.7%]), and program and professional society leadership roles for underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups (n = 473 [38.8%]).

      Conclusions

      Our survey explored imperative and timely perspectives on racial and ethnic representation and health equity among professionals in GI and hepatology. The findings should inform future interventions to address workforce diversity and establish priorities toward improving health equity, ultimately serving as a springboard for professional societies, academic institutions, and other organizations that aim to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in our field.

      Abbreviations:

      GI (gastroenterology), IGD (Intersociety Group on Diversity), UCLA (University of California–Los Angeles), UIM (underrepresented in medicine)
      Our nation has been reminded repeatedly of the pervasiveness of racial and social injustice. This injustice and repeated acts of prejudice nationwide have led to multiple responses, including the 2020 reinvigoration of the Black Lives Matter movement and sometimes uncomfortable conversations about race and racism in the United States. In this context, there has also been a reassessment of racial and ethnic representation in the biomedical sciences, including gastroenterology (GI) and hepatology.
      • Carr R.M.
      • Quezada S.M.
      • Gangarosa L.M.
      • et al.
      From intention to action: operationalizing AGA diversity policy to combat racism and health disparities in gastroenterology.
      ,
      • Anyane-Yeboa A.
      • Balzora S.
      • Gray 2nd, D.M.
      Improving diversity and inclusion in GI.
      Despite some progress over the last several decades to improve gender representation in GI and hepatology, there have been fewer strides forward for traditionally underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. The Association of American Medical Colleges defines underrepresented in medicine (UIM) as “those racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in the medical profession relative to their numbers in the general population.”
      Association of American Medical Colleges
      Underrepresented in medicine definition.
      These groups have traditionally included Latino (ie, Latino/a/x), Black (or African American), Native American (namely, American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian), Pacific Islander, and mainland Puerto Rican individuals.
      Association of American Medical Colleges
      Underrepresented in medicine definition.
      Several studies have demonstrated the benefits of a diverse physician workforce and workplace, including increased patient satisfaction, disease-specific knowledge, and adherence to medical recommendations
      • Keshet Y.
      Ethnic discordance: why do some patients prefer to be treated by physicians from other ethnic groups?.
      ,
      • Walker K.O.
      • Moreno G.
      • Grumbach K.
      The association among specialty, race, ethnicity, and practice location among California physicians in diverse specialties.
      when providers and patients have racial, ethnic, and/or linguistic concordance.
      • Takeshita J.
      • Wang S.
      • Loren A.W.
      • et al.
      Association of racial/ethnic and gender concordance between patients and physicians with patient experience ratings.
      UIM individuals bring underrecognized perspectives to the workplace and to scholarly activities, and are more likely to engage in health equity research, work in underserved communities and in areas where access to care is poor,
      • Keshet Y.
      Ethnic discordance: why do some patients prefer to be treated by physicians from other ethnic groups?.
      ,
      • Walker K.O.
      • Moreno G.
      • Grumbach K.
      The association among specialty, race, ethnicity, and practice location among California physicians in diverse specialties.
      and mentor students and trainees who are also from UIM backgrounds.
      • Toretsky C.
      • Mutha S.
      • Coffman J.
      Breaking barriers for underrepresented minorities in the health professions.
      There is a vital need to increase workplace diversity, inclusion, and equity in medicine. The Intersociety Group on Diversity (IGD), established in 2020 by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases; American College of Gastroenterology; American Gastroenterological Association; American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy; and the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, is one product of this movement. The objectives of this intersociety collaboration are to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in the membership and leadership of GI and hepatology national societies and eradicate health disparities in the patients served by members of these 5 national societies.
      • Intersociety Group on Diversity (IGD)
      Take a 10 minute survey to advance our understanding of GI workforce diversity. Published December 10, 2020.
      In partnership with the IGD, a group of investigators from the University of California–Los Angeles (UCLA) developed a 33-question cross-sectional survey (see Supplementary Material, available online at www.giejoural.org) for GI and hepatology professionals, with the overall aims to determine perspectives of current racial, ethnic, and gender diversity within GI and hepatology; to assess current views on interventions needed to increase racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in the field; and to collect data on the experiences of UIM individuals and women in our field.
      This article summarizes the survey participants’ demographic and professional characteristics and perspectives on racial and ethnic diversity and health care disparities in GI and hepatology. Our ultimate goal was to inform future discussions, initiatives, and interventions that improve representation in the GI and hepatology workforce and, in turn, improve patient and provider satisfaction and health outcomes.

      Methods

      Study population

      The study population included GI and hepatology medical professionals (ie, MD, MD/PhD, DO, NP, and PA) in the United States who were members of at least 1 of the 5 national societies that comprise the IGD. For the purposes of our study, Latinx is a gender-neutral term that is an alternative to Latino or Latina and refers to any individual of Latin American descent.
      • Pineda D.
      • Falls G.
      • Lugo R.R.
      ‘Latinx’: how to understand and use the term. Vascular Specialist. Published March 23, 2021.

      Survey development

      Survey development began with the UCLA researchers (H.R., J.T., L.Y., F.M.) in August of 2020 and was informed by a literature review of publications related to racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in GI and hepatology. This team then partnered with the newly developed IGD, at which time, IGD co-authors (R.I., S.Q., D.G., S.B.) provided input to meet the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion goals of the multiple GI and hepatology national societies. All of the UCLA and IGD investigators (7 female, 2 male) had university-based academic backgrounds, but there was an effort to include items and response categories appropriate for individuals in private practice. The survey was pilot tested for comprehension, readability, and timing and edited to incorporate suggested changes.
      The final electronic survey instrument included 33 questions; 32 were multiple-choice and 1 was a free-text item. Multiple responses were allowed for many of the questions and there was an option to include alternative responses as free text under “other.” There were 7 thematic modules (Fig. 1) for the survey items: 1) demographic information, 2) career and clinical practice characteristics, 3) perspectives on racial and ethnic diversity in GI and hepatology, 4) perspectives on gender diversity in GI and hepatology, 5) experiences as a UIM individual (if applicable), 6) experiences as a female individual (if applicable), and 7) health care disparities in GI and hepatology. Participants were also able to provide free-text comments at the end of the survey. The survey took approximately 10 to 15 minutes to complete (based on pilot testing). We summarized the results from modules 1, 2, 3, and 7.
      Figure thumbnail gr1
      Figure 1Thematic modules and items included in survey.

      Data collection

      We distributed surveys between December 8, 2020 and January 4, 2021 through online intersociety listservs that enabled us to reach members of all 5 national GI and hepatology societies. Members of each society received an initial e-mail invitation to complete the survey and 4 reminder e-mails during the study period. In addition, each medical society, members of the IGD, and the UCLA investigative team used social media platforms to encourage GI and hepatology society members to complete the survey.

      Data analysis

      We collected and organized survey data via Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap, Vanderbilt University) software. The team statisticians (L.Y., J.B.) completed descriptive statistics and cross-tabulations to summarize frequencies of responses and evaluate demographic characteristics, clinical and leadership roles, workplace satisfaction, and changes perceived necessary for improvements in workforce diversity and disparities overall and by race and ethnicity. The study was reviewed and approved by the UCLA Institutional Review Board (IRB #20-001770).

      Results

      Survey response

      We distributed a total of 28,085 e-mails with surveys and received 1219 responses, for a 4.3% response rate. However, we were not able to account for individuals who are members of more than 1 society or who received the survey more than once in this calculated response rate, due to the societies’ desire to maintain the confidentiality of society membership. For this reason, the true response rate is likely higher than 4.3%. The Association of American Medical Colleges estimated that there were 15,469 practicing gastroenterologists in the United States in 2019 (most recent estimate), and if we use this value as the number of potential participants, the survey response rate is estimated at 7.9%.
      Association of American Medical Colleges
      Active physicians with a U.S. Doctor of Medicine (U.S. MD) degree by specialty, 2019. AAMC Physician Specialty Data Report.

      Demographic characteristics of participants

      The majority of participants self-identified as male (n = 760 [62.3%]), and non-Hispanic White individuals (n = 568 [48.7%]) were the largest racial and ethnic group. The largest age group represented was 31 to 40 years (n = 301 [24.7%]). UIM participants self-identified their race and ethnicity as follows: 10.6% Latinx (n = 128), 9.1% non-Hispanic Black (n = 109), and 0.2% non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (n = 2). More than 75% of participants lived the majority of their lives in the United States (Table 1).
      Table 1Demographic and professional career characteristics of survey participants (n = 1219)
      Characteristicn%
      Demographic
       Age
      21–30 y433.5
      31–40 y30124.7
      41–50 y23219.1
      51–60 y27322.4
      61–70 y24520.1
      71–80 y887.2
      80+ y292.4
      Prefer not to answer60.5
      Not reported2
       Gender
      Male76062.5
      Female43735.9
      Other (transgender, agender, genderqueer, nonbinary)70.6
      Prefer not to answer131.1
      Not reported2
       Race and ethnicity
      Non-Hispanic White58648.7
      Non-Hispanic Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander27122.5
      Hispanic12810.6
      Non-Hispanic Black1099.1
      Non-Hispanic other403.3
      Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaskan Native20.2
      Prefer not to answer685.7
      Not reported15
      Geographic area
      United States95278.3
      Outside United States25721.1
      Prefer not to answer70.6
      Not reported3
      Professional career
       Time in practice
      Currently in training12410.2
      <5 y15312.6
      5–10 y16813.8
      11–15 y1048.6
      16–20 y1169.5
      21–25 y14011.5
      26–30 y13411.0
      31–35 y957.8
      >35 y17414.3
      Prefer not to answer90.7
      Not reported2
       Subspecialty (not mutually exclusive)
      General gastroenterology72859.7
      Advanced/interventional endoscopy18915.5
      Hepatology (including transplant hepatology)17114.0
      Inflammatory bowel disease14912.2
      Pediatric gastroenterology13110.8
      Gastrointestinal motility and functional disorders857.0
      Research (nonclinical)594.8
      Gastrointestinal nutrition423.5
      Pediatric hepatology352.9
      Other1209.8
      None141.2
      Prefer not to answer80.7
       Primary workplace setting
      Academic65453.9
      Private practice43736.0
      Other998.2
      Industry141.2
      Prefer not to answer90.7
      Not reported5
       Workplace leadership position
      President, chief executive officer, or chief medical officer453.7
      Chair of department544.4
      Dean, associate dean, assistant dean of medical school110.9
      Chief of division (gastroenterology, gastroenterology and hepatology, hepatology)1159.4
      Partner in private practice17914.7
      Director or associate director of residency or fellowship program776.3
      Other division leadership (director of research, center director, director of inflammatory bowel disease, quality director)18615.3
      Group practice director594.8
      Other967.9
      Not applicable; I do not hold a leadership position at this time57747.3
      Society leadership (not mutually exclusive)
      Society leadership roles included committee or subcommittee members, committee, or subcommittee chair, and governing board.
      American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases24219.9
      American College of Gastroenterology2959.8
      American Gastroenterological Association78164.1
      American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy59548.8
      North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition16013.1
      Other1109.0
      Prefer not to answer151.2
      a Society leadership roles included committee or subcommittee members, committee, or subcommittee chair, and governing board.

      Professional practice characteristics

      A majority of survey participants (n = 654 [53.9%]) worked in an academic setting, followed by private practice (n = 437 [36.0%]). The most common subspecialty focus was general gastroenterology (n = 728 [59.7%]), followed by hepatology (n = 171 [14.0%]). Notably, there was nearly equal representation from all career stages, from clinical training (GI fellowship) through more than 35 years of practice. Self-reported society membership was 64.1% for American Gastroenterological Association, 59.8% for American College of Gastroenterology, 48.8% for American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 19.9% for American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, and 13.1% for North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (Table 1). Of note, 44.5% of participants in academia were female, compared with only 23.6% in private practice. Racial and ethnic groups had similar representation in academia and private practice: non-Hispanic White, 54.6% vs 58.3%; non-Hispanic Black, 11.7% vs 8.1%; non-Hispanic Asian, 27.8% vs 24.1%; and Latinx, 10.3% vs 12.3%, respectively.

      Perspectives on current racial and ethnic diversity in gastroenterology and hepatology

      The majority of participants were very satisfied (n = 423 [34.8%]) or somewhat satisfied (n = 465 [38.2%]) with the current level of racial and ethnic diversity in their workplace. Conversely, 16.6% (n = 202) were unsatisfied and 8.1% (n = 98) were very unsatisfied. Satisfaction with racial and ethnic diversity varied by race and ethnicity. Although 77.7% (n = 455) of non-Hispanic White participants were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the current level of diversity at their workplace, 63.3% (n = 69) of non-Hispanic Black and 23.4% (n = 30) of Latinx individuals were somewhat or very unsatisfied.
      Satisfaction also varied by age and practice type, but, notably, not by leadership status. Of participants 50 years or older (52.5%), 77.3% were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the current level of diversity at their workplace, compared with 68.8% of participants younger than 50 years. Of participants in private practice (36.0%), 80.3% were somewhat or very satisfied by the level of workplace diversity. However, of participants in academia (53.9%), 68.7% were somewhat or very satisfied. Of participants in leadership positions, 75.5% were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the level of diversity, compared with 70.0% in nonleadership positions. When we considered the race and ethnicity of participants in leadership positions (60.4% were non-Hispanic White, 12.4% were Latinx, 6.6% were non-Hispanic Black, 24.3% were non-Hispanic Asian, and 0.2% were non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native), 77.5% of non-Hispanic White participants, 33.3% of non-Hispanic Black participants, 83.1% of Latinx participants, and 80.3% of non-Hispanic Asian participants in leadership roles were somewhat satisfied or very satisfied with the level of diversity at their workplace.
      A large proportion of participants (n = 561 [46.0%]) responded “I don’t know” when asked to indicate the subspecialty area (eg, general gastroenterology, advanced endoscopy, pediatric hepatology, pediatric gastroenterology, and basic science research) within GI and hepatology with the least racial and ethnic diversity. Approximately one-quarter of participants (n = 312 [25.6%]) selected advanced endoscopy. Conversely, pediatric hepatology was perceived as the subspecialty area with the most racial and ethnic diversity. A large proportion of participants (n = 553 [45.4%]) reported that the number of UIM individuals in their workplace should increase. However, there was also a large group of participants (n = 490 [40.2%]) who did not feel that the number of UIM individuals should increase within their workplace.

      Reported barriers to increasing racial and ethnic diversity in gastroenterology and hepatology

      The most frequently reported barriers to increasing racial and ethnic diversity in GI and hepatology were insufficient representation of racial and ethnic minority groups in the educational and training pipeline (n = 431 [35.4%]), insufficient racial and ethnic minority group representation in professional leadership (n = 340 [27.9%]), and insufficient racial and ethnic minority group representation among practicing GI and hepatology professionals in the workplace (n = 324 [26.6%]) (Fig. 2). Most participants (n = 723 [59.7%]) expressed that they felt racial and ethnic diversity had increased over the past 5 years, compared with a smaller group (n = 241 [19.9%]) who felt that there was no substantial change.
      Figure thumbnail gr2
      Figure 2Perceived barriers to workforce diversity among GI and hepatology professionals.

      Interventions to increase racial and ethnic diversity and to address health care disparities in gastroenterology and hepatology

      More than 40% of participants (n = 545 [44.7%]) felt that future efforts to improve racial and ethnic workforce diversity in GI and hepatology should include an increase in career mentorship opportunities for UIM individuals. Additional recommendations were to increase medical student opportunities (n = 520 [42.7%]) in GI and hepatology and to increase UIM representation in training program and professional society leadership (n = 473 [38.8%]) (Fig. 3).
      Figure thumbnail gr3
      Figure 3Perceived best interventions to improve representation of UIM individuals in GI and hepatology. UIM, underrepresented in medicine.
      Participants reported that several strategies could be adopted by national societies and academic medical centers to improve health equity for clinical outcomes, including increasing UIM mentorship programs (n = 688 [56.4%]); increasing undergraduate pipeline science, technology, engineering, and mathematics programs for UIM undergraduate students (n = 625 [51.3%]), increasing UIM representation in leadership in national societies (n = 553 [45.4%]), and developing national and local policies to improve health care access and delivery in medically underserved communities (n = 508 [41.7%]) (Fig. 4).
      Figure thumbnail gr4
      Figure 4Perceived strategies to improve health equity/health disparities. UIM, underrepresented in medicine.
      Consistently, racial and ethnic diversity among health care providers was perceived to influence patient care. A majority of participants (n = 707 [58%]) indicated that increasing workforce diversity would impact patient care by increasing the willingness of racial and ethnic minority patients to receive medical care. Similarly, a large group (n = 542 [44.5%]) stated that increased UIM representation among providers would increase patient satisfaction with medical care. Nearly one-half of participants (n = 553 [45.4%]) felt that increased racial and ethnic diversity among practicing GI and hepatology professionals would increase research findings that improve health outcomes for patients from medically underserved backgrounds (Fig. 5).
      Figure thumbnail gr5
      Figure 5Perceived impact of increasing representation of UIM individuals on basic and clinical research. UIM, underrepresented in medicine.

      Discussion

      There is a paucity of data on perceptions of diversity and disparities in the GI and hepatology workforce, despite relatively stagnant UIM representation in GI and hepatology over the last decade. Given the importance and growing awareness of diversity, or lack thereof, we conducted a national cross-sectional survey-based study to examine current views on workforce diversity and health equity, assess potential interventions to address diversity and health inequities, and increase knowledge of the experiences of those underrepresented in GI and hepatology. Our survey is the first to explore recent perspectives on UIM representation and health equity among professionals in GI and hepatology and highlights that to improve workforce diversity and address health disparities in our field, a necessary first step may be to better demonstrate why these factors must be a critical priority.
      Based on data published by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, the percentage of fellows in GI and hepatology who are UIM has remained low at 9.0% since 2011. Although this trend among GI and hepatology fellows is not reassuring, it correlates closely with UIM representation among internal medicine residents. In addition, the proportion of UIM academic faculty has never exceeded 10% at each academic rank and, more concerningly, there has been a decline in the proportion of UIM individuals at junior academic faculty positions in recent years.
      • Carethers J.M.
      • Quezada S.M.
      • Carr R.M.
      • et al.
      Diversity within US gastroenterology physician practices: the pipeline, cultural competencies, and gastroenterology societies approaches.
      Within academic GI and hepatology divisions, similar patterns are noted—only 9% of U.S. academic gastroenterologists identify as UIM and there has been little change in the proportion of UIM individuals within GI and hepatology divisions over the last decade.
      • Carethers J.M.
      • Quezada S.M.
      • Carr R.M.
      • et al.
      Diversity within US gastroenterology physician practices: the pipeline, cultural competencies, and gastroenterology societies approaches.
      Potential contributors to these observations may be lack of racial and ethnic diversity in the medical training pipeline, nondiverse leadership, bias, racial discrimination, and the notion that UIM physicians may be less likely to promote themselves or be promoted.
      • Fang X.
      • Francisconi C.F.
      • Fukudo S.
      • et al.
      Multicultural aspects in functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs).
      We found that despite the well-recognized scarcity of UIM individuals in GI and hepatology, only a small proportion of survey participants (one-third or fewer) felt that racial and ethnic representation was insufficient in the educational and training pipeline, among practicing professionals, or in GI and hepatology leadership. When asked to report their current level of satisfaction with workplace diversity, nearly three-fourths of participants stated they were somewhat or very satisfied, and a majority of participants (59.7%) felt that racial and ethnic diversity has increased over the past 5 years, despite data supporting the contrary.
      Notably, there was also a discrepancy between the large number of participants who were satisfied with the level of diversity in their workplace and the large number who indicated that interventions are needed to improve diversity and equity. Although these findings appear contradictory, they are not mutually exclusive. It is possible that the participants felt satisfied with the level of diversity, yet thought that it could be further improved. Of those who reported they were very satisfied (34.8%), 10.4% indicated that interventions are needed to improve diversity and equity. Of those who reported that they were somewhat or very satisfied (73.0%), 42.6% indicated that interventions are needed to improve diversity and equity. The finding may also reflect the large proportion of survey participants in leadership positions who were non-UIM (60.4%) and rated satisfaction high (77.5%). It may be the case that non-UIM leaders (overrepresented in our sample) who help shape the demographic composition of their workplace were or felt obligated to report content with the degree of diversity, but are also aware of the need for increased diversity.
      There are a number of benefits to a more diverse GI and hepatology workforce. The current racial and ethnic composition of the GI and hepatology workforce does not reflect the population of patients served or the current matriculants in medicine.
      US Census Bureau
      Quick facts: United States.
      ,
      Association of American Medical Colleges
      Diversity in medicine: facts and figures 2019.
      Provider–patient concordance studies have demonstrated that patients value commonality with their physicians on the dimensions of race and ethnicity, as well as language. This patient preference underscores the need to recruit and train a more diverse cohort of trainees into GI and hepatology fellowships if the desired goal is to optimize patient care and combat health disparities.
      US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration Bureau of Health Professions
      The rationale for diversity in the health professions: a review of the evidence. Published October 2006.
      Cultural understanding impacts a patient’s perspective of their health and influences expression of symptoms and concerns, which may improve provider diagnostic accuracy and treatment recommendations.
      • Fang X.
      • Francisconi C.F.
      • Fukudo S.
      • et al.
      Multicultural aspects in functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs).
      Patients may also be more inclined to adhere to treatment recommendations when their provider is from a similar background.
      • Saha S.
      • Komaromy M.
      • Koepsell T.D.
      • et al.
      Patient-physician racial concordance and the perceived quality and use of health care.
      ,
      • Saha S.
      • Arbelaez J.J.
      • Cooper L.A.
      Patient–physician relationships and racial disparities in the quality of health care.
      As there are several conditions in GI and hepatology with disparities in incidence, treatment, and outcomes, representation of UIM individuals is critical to address health disparities.
      • Sewell J.L.
      • Inadomi J.M.
      • Yee Jr., H.F.
      Race and inflammatory bowel disease in an urban healthcare system.
      ,
      • Ashktorab H.
      • Kupfer S.S.
      • Brim H.
      • et al.
      Racial disparity in gastrointestinal cancer risk.
      UIM physicians are also more likely to work in medically underserved communities where access to care is poor.
      • Moy E.
      • Bartman B.A.
      Physician race and care of minority and medically indigent patients.
      ,
      • Marrast L.M.
      • Zallman L.
      • Woolhandler S.
      • et al.
      Minority physicians’ role in the care of underserved patients: diversifying the physician workforce may be key in addressing health disparities.
      Hence, diversifying GI and hepatology becomes important not only for making the subspecialty a more equitable profession, but for the quality of health care provided to our patients across the country.
      • Wang A.
      • Shaukat A.
      • Acosta R.D.
      • et al.
      ASGE Standards of Practice Committee
      Race and ethnicity considerations in GI endoscopy.
      In addition to the benefits for patient care, UIM individuals broaden the scope of medical research, scholarly activity, and mentorship. UIM individuals are more likely to engage in health equity research and to conduct community-embedded interventions for conditions that disproportionately impact medically underserved populations.
      • Carethers J.M.
      • Quezada S.M.
      • Carr R.M.
      • et al.
      Diversity within US gastroenterology physician practices: the pipeline, cultural competencies, and gastroenterology societies approaches.
      UIM individuals bring alternate perspectives to the workplace and to scholarly activities, and teams composed of diverse individuals operate with increased creativity and promote cross-cultural competence. UIM individuals are also more likely to mentor UIM students and trainees, creating new channels for mentorship for students and trainees of underrepresented backgrounds.
      • Walker K.O.
      • Moreno G.
      • Grumbach K.
      The association among specialty, race, ethnicity, and practice location among California physicians in diverse specialties.
      ,
      • Louissaint J.
      • May F.P.
      • Williams S.
      • et al.
      Effective mentorship as a means to recruit, retain, and promote underrepresented minorities in academic gastroenterology and hepatology.
      On the basis of our survey results, the most recommended interventions to increase racial and gender diversity nationwide among GI and hepatology professionals were to increase GI and hepatology mentorship opportunities for UIM residents, increase GI and hepatology mentorship opportunities for UIM medical students, and increase representation of GI and hepatology professionals from underrepresented backgrounds within program and professional society leadership. Previous literature has suggested the need to increase representation of UIM individuals in the training pipeline, and multiple national GI and hepatology societies, including the American College of Gastroenterology, American Gastroenterological Association, and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, have consequently developed research and/or summer programs pairing researchers or professionals with undergraduate and medical students.
      • Carethers J.M.
      • Quezada S.M.
      • Carr R.M.
      • et al.
      Diversity within US gastroenterology physician practices: the pipeline, cultural competencies, and gastroenterology societies approaches.
      ,
      • Merchant J.L.
      • Omary M.B.
      Underrepresentation of underrepresented minorities in academic medicine: the need to enhance the pipeline and the pipe.
      The national GI and hepatology societies comprising the IGD may continue to be instrumental in implementing these strategies by creating formal, structured, and assigned mentorship and shadowing opportunities for UIM medical students and residents considering a career in GI and hepatology. Societies may also garner support for UIM GI and hepatology professionals interested in pursuing leadership roles in the national societies and in local settings, such as in training programs (eg, program director), academic institutions (eg, division chief), and clinical practice leadership (eg, partner).
      • VanWagner L.B.
      • Issaka R.B.
      The path to gastroenterology and hepatology leadership: inadvertently perpetuating the glass ceiling and sticky floor.
      As proprietors of the GI and hepatology journals that determine educational content for professionals, the societies can also help to promote broad dissemination of research related to diversity and disparities and other intellectual content from UIM professionals. These examples are but a few of the many ways that gastroenterologists and hepatologists, medical societies, allies, and the IGD can serve collectively as important agents of change.
      • Bilal M.
      • Balzora S.
      • Pochapin M.B.
      • et al.
      The need for allyship in achieving gender equity in gastroenterology.
      By sharing our survey findings, we hope to underscore the need for more widespread education of GI and hepatology professionals and leadership regarding the lack of adequate UIM representation in our field.
      There are a number of limitations to our survey and its findings. First, given that the survey was disseminated electronically, it may not represent the views of GI and hepatology professionals who do not have access to or use electronic communication. However, given the high use of electronic communication in the medical fields, we believe that the impact of this potential limitation is likely minor. Second, there may be some responder bias, given recent national events and pressures to align with or to not align with themes and sentiments presented in the media. We suspect, however, that the anonymity and self-response nature of the survey maximizes likelihood of reliable participant responses. Responder bias may also exist due to overrepresentation of UIM individuals and of individuals in leadership positions. Approximately 11% of practicing gastroenterologists in the United States are from a UIM background, whereas nearly 19.9% of survey participants were UIM individuals. Third, we were unable to determine an exact survey response rate due to multiple society memberships and the desire of the societies to maintain confidentiality of members. Fourth, as Research Electronic Data Capture software does not prevent survey participants from completing a survey multiple times, multiple responses from 1 individual may have biased the results and response rate. An additional limitation may be an inability to explore the perspectives of mixed-race individuals.
      Despite these limitations, our study has many strengths. It is the first of its kind to explore perspectives on race and ethnicity and diversity among practicing GI and hepatology professionals and to gain insight on interventions to increase UIM representation. The survey also provides information regarding current demographic and professional characteristics of a large, diverse sample of both adult and pediatric GI and hepatology providers in academic and private practice settings the United States. Survey participants were racially and ethnically diverse and, notably, there was high representation of racial and ethnic minority groups and women among the survey participants. The demographic characteristics of the survey participants may reflect the importance and value this topic has for these groups. Nonetheless, 64.6% of survey participants reported not identifying as UIM, and the survey results reflect the non-UIM majority. Our survey also underscores the discrepancy in satisfaction with workplace diversity among GI and hepatology physicians by race and ethnicity: 63% of black physicians were very or somewhat unsatisfied with workplace diversity, whereas 78% of white physicians were very or somewhat satisfied. Essentially, those not UIM and not necessarily impacted by a lack of diversity are less likely to see lack of diversity as an important issue.
      The initial interest in undertaking this study was sparked by several national events in 2020 that highlighted racial injustices and health care disparities in the United States. The findings of this study help characterize the status quo, identify areas where workforce disparities are greatest, inform future interventions to address representation of UIM individuals, and establish priorities toward improving health equity. The results serve as a springboard for the 5 GI and hepatology societies within the IGD, academic institutions, academic and private practice leadership, and other organizations as they aim to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in our field and eliminate disparities among the patients we serve.

      Supplementary Material

      References

        • Carr R.M.
        • Quezada S.M.
        • Gangarosa L.M.
        • et al.
        From intention to action: operationalizing AGA diversity policy to combat racism and health disparities in gastroenterology.
        Gastroenterology. 2020; 159: 1637-1647
        • Anyane-Yeboa A.
        • Balzora S.
        • Gray 2nd, D.M.
        Improving diversity and inclusion in GI.
        Am J Gastroenterol. 2020; 115: 1147-1149
        • Association of American Medical Colleges
        Underrepresented in medicine definition.
        (Available at:) (Accessed July 8, 2021)
        • Keshet Y.
        Ethnic discordance: why do some patients prefer to be treated by physicians from other ethnic groups?.
        Soc Sci Med. 2019; 235
        • Walker K.O.
        • Moreno G.
        • Grumbach K.
        The association among specialty, race, ethnicity, and practice location among California physicians in diverse specialties.
        J Natl Med Assoc. 2012; 104: 46-52
        • Takeshita J.
        • Wang S.
        • Loren A.W.
        • et al.
        Association of racial/ethnic and gender concordance between patients and physicians with patient experience ratings.
        JAMA Netw Open. 2020; 3e2024583
        • Toretsky C.
        • Mutha S.
        • Coffman J.
        Breaking barriers for underrepresented minorities in the health professions.
        Healthforce Center at UCSF, 2019 (Available at: https://healthforce.ucsf.edu/publications/breaking-barriers-underrepresented-minorities-health-professions. Accessed July 8, 2021)
        • Intersociety Group on Diversity (IGD)
        Take a 10 minute survey to advance our understanding of GI workforce diversity. Published December 10, 2020.
        (Available at:) (Accessed July 8, 2021)
        • Pineda D.
        • Falls G.
        • Lugo R.R.
        ‘Latinx’: how to understand and use the term. Vascular Specialist. Published March 23, 2021.
        (Available at:) (Accessed July 8, 2021)
        • Association of American Medical Colleges
        Active physicians with a U.S. Doctor of Medicine (U.S. MD) degree by specialty, 2019. AAMC Physician Specialty Data Report.
        (Available at:) (Accessed July 8, 2021)
        • Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education
        ACGME Data Resource Book.
        (Available at:) (Accessed July 8, 2021)
        • Carethers J.M.
        • Quezada S.M.
        • Carr R.M.
        • et al.
        Diversity within US gastroenterology physician practices: the pipeline, cultural competencies, and gastroenterology societies approaches.
        Gastroenterology. 2019; 156: 829-833
        • Fang X.
        • Francisconi C.F.
        • Fukudo S.
        • et al.
        Multicultural aspects in functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs).
        Gastroenterology. 2016; 150: 1344-1354
        • US Census Bureau
        Quick facts: United States.
        (Available at:)
        • Association of American Medical Colleges
        Diversity in medicine: facts and figures 2019.
        (Available at:)
        • US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration Bureau of Health Professions
        The rationale for diversity in the health professions: a review of the evidence. Published October 2006.
        (Available at:) (Accessed July 10, 2021)
        • Saha S.
        • Komaromy M.
        • Koepsell T.D.
        • et al.
        Patient-physician racial concordance and the perceived quality and use of health care.
        Arch Intern Med. 1999; 159: 997
        • Saha S.
        • Arbelaez J.J.
        • Cooper L.A.
        Patient–physician relationships and racial disparities in the quality of health care.
        Am J Public Health. 2003; 93: 1713-1719
        • Sewell J.L.
        • Inadomi J.M.
        • Yee Jr., H.F.
        Race and inflammatory bowel disease in an urban healthcare system.
        Dig Sci. 2010; 55: 3479-3487
        • Ashktorab H.
        • Kupfer S.S.
        • Brim H.
        • et al.
        Racial disparity in gastrointestinal cancer risk.
        Gastroenterology. 2017; 153: 910-923
        • Moy E.
        • Bartman B.A.
        Physician race and care of minority and medically indigent patients.
        JAMA. 1995; 273: 1515-1520
        • Marrast L.M.
        • Zallman L.
        • Woolhandler S.
        • et al.
        Minority physicians’ role in the care of underserved patients: diversifying the physician workforce may be key in addressing health disparities.
        JAMA Intern Med. 2014; 174: 289
        • Wang A.
        • Shaukat A.
        • Acosta R.D.
        • et al.
        • ASGE Standards of Practice Committee
        Race and ethnicity considerations in GI endoscopy.
        Commun ASGE Stand Pract Comm. 2015; 82: 593-599
        • Louissaint J.
        • May F.P.
        • Williams S.
        • et al.
        Effective mentorship as a means to recruit, retain, and promote underrepresented minorities in academic gastroenterology and hepatology.
        Am J Gastroenterol. 2021; 116: 1110-1113
        • Merchant J.L.
        • Omary M.B.
        Underrepresentation of underrepresented minorities in academic medicine: the need to enhance the pipeline and the pipe.
        Gastroenterology. 2010; 138: 19-26.e3
        • VanWagner L.B.
        • Issaka R.B.
        The path to gastroenterology and hepatology leadership: inadvertently perpetuating the glass ceiling and sticky floor.
        Gastroenterology. 2021; 160: 2201-2202
        • Bilal M.
        • Balzora S.
        • Pochapin M.B.
        • et al.
        The need for allyship in achieving gender equity in gastroenterology.
        Am J Gastroenterol. 2021; 116: 2321-2323