↓ Skip to main content

Hot topics, urgent priorities, and ensuring success for racial/ethnic minority young investigators in academic pediatrics

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Hot topics, urgent priorities, and ensuring success for racial/ethnic minority young investigators in academic pediatrics
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12939-016-0494-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Glenn Flores, Fernando S. Mendoza, Elena Fuentes-Afflick, Jason A. Mendoza, Lee Pachter, Juan Espinoza, Cristina R. Fernandez, Danielle D. P. Arnold, Nicole M. Brown, Kymberly M. Gonzalez, Cynthia Lopez, Mikah C. Owen, Kenya M. Parks, Kimberly L. Reynolds, Christopher J. Russell

Abstract

The number of racial/ethnic minority children will exceed the number of white children in the USA by 2018. Although 38% of Americans are minorities, only 12% of pediatricians, 5% of medical-school faculty, and 3% of medical-school professors are minorities. Furthermore, only 5% of all R01 applications for National Institutes of Health grants are from African-American, Latino, and American Indian investigators. Prompted by the persistent lack of diversity in the pediatric and biomedical research workforces, the Academic Pediatric Association Research in Academic Pediatrics Initiative on Diversity (RAPID) was initiated in 2012. RAPID targets applicants who are members of an underrepresented minority group (URM), disabled, or from a socially, culturally, economically, or educationally disadvantaged background. The program, which consists of both a research project and career and leadership development activities, includes an annual career-development and leadership conference which is open to any resident, fellow, or junior faculty member from an URM, disabled, or disadvantaged background who is interested in a career in academic general pediatrics. As part of the annual RAPID conference, a Hot Topic Session is held in which the young investigators spend several hours developing a list of hot topics on the most useful faculty and career-development issues. These hot topics are then posed in the form of six "burning questions" to the RAPID National Advisory Committee (comprised of accomplished, nationally recognized senior investigators who are seasoned mentors), the RAPID Director and Co-Director, and the keynote speaker. The six compelling questions posed by the 10 young investigators-along with the responses of the senior conference leadership-provide a unique resource and "survival guide" for ensuring the academic success and optimal career development of young investigators in academic pediatrics from diverse backgrounds. A rich conversation ensued on the topics addressed, consisting of negotiating for protected research time, career trajectories as academic institutions move away from an emphasis on tenure-track positions, how "non-academic" products fit into career development, racism and discrimination in academic medicine and how to address them, coping with isolation as a minority faculty member, and how best to mentor the next generation of academic physicians.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Unknown 97 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 15%
Researcher 13 13%
Other 9 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 20 20%
Unknown 30 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 23%
Social Sciences 14 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 9%
Psychology 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 40 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 May 2019.
All research outputs
#1,156,199
of 23,342,092 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#155
of 1,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,414
of 421,966 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#5
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,092 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,954 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 421,966 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.