Table 3

Characteristics of peer-reviewed literature (general programmes)

General programmes
CitationEDI infoProgramme(s)CountryStart yearContent: awareness/sensitivityTheory/frameworkStudy designOutcomesControls/comparatorConfounders
PedagogyEDIEvaluation*QuantQual Self-reportedObservable
Fassiotto et al, 201862SG
URM
Stanford Leadership Development ProgramUSA2006-----C
Hopkins et al, 201864-----K------------
Kirk et al, 201965SGUniversity of Calgary, Department of PediatricsCanada2016---------------n/an/a
Maza et al, 201666SGClalit Health ServicesIsrael2013-------K------------
Phillips et al, 201867---Welsh Clinical Leadership Fellowship (WCLF)UK2013-------K------n/an/a
Smith et al, 2018SGEmory University School of Medicine,
Radiology Leadership Academy (RLA)
USA2009---------------
Throgmorton et al, 201668--SW Michigan regional healthcare system:
Physician Leadership Academy
USA2012----K---------
Vitous et al, 201969--University of Michigan, Department of Surgery:
Leadership Development Program (LDP)
USA2012------------n/an/a
  • *O=Directly linked to objectives, C=Conceptual model reprofessional development of women in academic medicine [Magrane et al, J Women’s Health 1012; 12: 1244–1251; Bickel. J Women’s Health 2012; 21:1230–1231]. K=Kirkpatrick [Kirkpatrick, J.D. & Kirkpatrick, W.K. Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation. ATD Press, Alexandria, VA: 2016].

  • EDI, equity, diversity and inclusion; S/G, sex/gender; URM, under-represented minority.