Comparison of National Institutes of Health Grant Amounts to First-Time Male and Female Principal Investigators

Perceived barriers to career progression in the headache field: A global web-based cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

It is well recognized that underrepresented and minoritized groups do not have the same career opportunities. However, there are limited data on the range and specifics of potential barriers that withhold people in headache medicine and science from reaching their full potential. Moreover, people from different geographical regions often perceive different challenges. We aimed to identify world-wide perceived career barriers and possibilities for promoting equality amongst professionals in the headache fields.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among professionals in the field of headache globally. The questions of the survey were aimed at assessing perceived career barriers in four domains: professional recognition, opportunities in scientific societies, clinical practice, and salary and compensation. Perceived mentorship was also assessed.

RESULTS

In total 580 responders completed the survey (55.3% women). Gender was the most important perceived barrier in almost all domains. Additionally, country of birth emerged as an important barrier to participation in international scientific societies. Career barriers varied across world regions.

CONCLUSION

It is essential that longstanding and ongoing disparities by gender and country of origin for professionals in the headache field are globally acknowledged and addressed in areas of recruitment, retention, opportunities, mentor- and sponsorships, and advancement.

Gender-diverse teams produce more novel and higher-impact scientific ideas

Science's changing demographics raise new questions about research team diversity and research outcomes. We study mixed-gender research teams, examining 6.6 million papers published across the medical sciences since 2000 and establishing several core findings. First, the fraction of publications by mixed-gender teams has grown rapidly, yet mixed-gender teams continue to be underrepresented compared to the expectations of a null model. Second, despite their underrepresentation, the publications of mixed-gender teams are substantially more novel and impactful than the publications of same-gender teams of equivalent size. Third, the greater the gender balance on a team, the better the team scores on these performance measures. Fourth, these patterns generalize across medical subfields. Finally, the novelty and impact advantages seen with mixed-gender teams persist when considering numerous controls and potential related features, including fixed effects for the individual researchers, team structures, and network positioning, suggesting that a team's gender balance is an underrecognized yet powerful correlate of novel and impactful scientific discoveries.

Equity, diversity and inclusion of pediatric clinician-scientists in Canada: a thematic analysis

BACKGROUND

Underrepresented voices and perspectives are missing from academic and clinical health sciences. We aimed to define the unique opportunities and challenges of pediatric clinician-scientists related to equity, diversity and inclusion; and to identify key components of training needed to support people from equity-seeking groups as emerging and early-career pediatric clinician-scientists to generate diverse health research leaders in knowledge generation, implementation and translation.

METHODS

Using a qualitative descriptive approach, we examined the experiences of clinician stakeholders. Semistructured interviews were conducted with pediatric clinician-scientist stakeholders. Thematic analysis was performed.

RESULTS

We interviewed a total of 39 individuals. Our analysis resulted in 4 interrelated themes: the pervasiveness and invisibility of sexism; the invisibility and visibility of racism; proposed individual-level solutions to the sexism and racism; and proposed institutional and system-level changes to address the porous and leaky pipeline. These themes acknowledged that, ultimately, system change is required for addressing equity, diversity and inclusion in clinical and academic training environments.

INTERPRETATION

These findings highlight the importance of addressing systemic biases that limit the inclusion of women and racialized individuals in pediatric clinician-scientist careers. Further research is needed to explore the problem of exclusion, which will, in turn, inform education of pediatric clinician-scientists and inform better ways to promote equity, diversity and inclusivity; these steps are needed to foster systemic change in the cultures that perpetuate exclusivity in both academic and clinical communities.

Best Practices for Designing Informative Trials Including Women

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite mandates from funding agencies and professional societies to broaden inclusivity in medical research, women remain underrepresented in cardiovascular clinical trials. This lack of representation limits the generalizability of the findings and results in uncertainty about the safety and efficacy of many cardiovascular therapies in female patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several barriers impact women's participation in clinical trials, including enrollment criteria, common misconceptions, access to tertiary care, and women representation in clinical trial leadership. This short review discusses these barriers and suggests potential solutions to increase women's participation in clinical trials and improve their cardiovascular health.

Untangling the network effects of productivity and prominence among scientists

While inequalities in science are common, most efforts to understand them treat scientists as isolated individuals, ignoring the network effects of collaboration. Here, we develop models that untangle the network effects of productivity defined as paper counts, and prominence referring to high-impact publications, of individual scientists from their collaboration networks. We find that gendered differences in the productivity and prominence of mid-career researchers can be largely explained by differences in their coauthorship networks. Hence, collaboration networks act as a form of social capital, and we find evidence of their transferability from senior to junior collaborators, with benefits that decay as researchers age. Collaboration network effects can also explain a large proportion of the productivity and prominence advantages held by researchers at prestigious institutions. These results highlight a substantial role of social networks in driving inequalities in science, and suggest that collaboration networks represent an important form of unequally distributed social capital that shapes who makes what scientific discoveries.

Rank and Tenure Amongst Faculty at Academic Medical Centers: A Study of More Than 50 Years of Gender Disparities

PURPOSE

To investigate progress toward gender equality in academic medicine through a longitudinal analysis of gender parity among faculty at medical schools.

METHOD

The authors conducted a retrospective analysis of Association of American Medical Colleges Faculty Roster data on gender, tenure status, and academic rank of faculty in basic science (BSc) and clinical science (CSc) departments from 1966 to 2019. They expressed data as whole numbers and percent female. A trend analysis projected time to gender parity across rank and tenure categories, and cross-tabulation analysis revealed the relative odds of females being in a rank and tenure position relative to males.

RESULTS

A 12-fold increase in the number of faculty occurred from 1966 to 2019, driven largely by increases in non-tenure track faculty. Female tenured and tenure track numbers increased at consistent rates (121 and 174 per year; P < .001). Female non-tenure track rates mirrored those for males, both changing in 2000. Odds ratios in 2019 for BSc and CSc females to be in tenure track versus non-tenure track positions compared with males were 0.83/0.98 and to be tenured were 0.63/0.44. Odds ratios in 2019 for BSc and CSc females to be full professors versus assistant or associate professors compared with males were 0.55/0.42. BSc assistant and associate professor percent female rates increased linearly from 1966 to 2019, while full professor rates increased in 1986. Transition points between periods of linear change were seen later in CSc departments (1977, 1980, 1985, 1994). Best fit line models indicated gender parity will be reached for BSc/CSc faculty in 2034/2023, 2047/2033, and 2065/2053 for assistant, associate, and full professors, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest large historical changes in medical school expansion, medical education, and economics have shifted gender curves at all academic ranks. To achieve gender parity, additional national changes are needed.

Evolution and Trends in Male Versus Female Authorship of Articles in Flagship Orthopaedic Journals From 1995 to 2020

INTRODUCTION

The gender disparity in orthopaedic surgery has been recognized for many years. Because research affects promotions, this study investigates trends in female authorship in three journals over the past 25 years for both first and senior authors.

METHODS

All articles from Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research from 1995 to 2020 in 5-year intervals were downloaded, and the data for first and senior authors were extracted. The sex of the first and senior authors was determined using the validated Genderize algorithm. The demographics of the first and senior author cohorts were analyzed using chi square tests. The trends in female authorship controlling for year and journal were assessed with logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Within the studied journals, 5,636 individuals were identified as first authors and 4,572 as senior authors. Sex was determined for 82.59% of the authors. Female first authorship increased significantly from 1995 to 2020 (6.70% to 15.37%, P < 0.001). Similarly, female senior authorship increased significantly from 1995 to 2020 (8.22% to 13.65%, P < 0.001). Overall, there was no significant difference in gender composition of authors between journals (P = 0.700 first author and P = 0.098 senior author). Women were much more likely to publish as first or senior author in later years, regardless of the journal (P < 0.001 first author and P < 0.001 senior author).

DISCUSSION

Female authorship in prominent orthopaedic journals has increased markedly from 1995 to 2020 with interjournal differences in senior author gender disparity. Although female orthopaedic surgeons publish at rates equal to or greater than their representation in the specialty, additional research is needed into the persistence of gender disparities in orthopaedics.

Lessons from the Stories of Women in Neuroscience

Women have been contributing to the field of neuroscience since its inception, but their accomplishments are often overlooked. Lack of recognition, among other issues, has led to progressively fewer women at each academic stage; although half of neuroscience graduate students are women, women comprise less than one-third of neuroscience faculty, and even fewer full professors. Those who reach this level continue to struggle to get their work recognized. Women from historically excluded backgrounds are even more starkly underrepresented and face added challenges related to racial, ethnic, and other biases. To increase the visibility of women in neuroscience, promote their voices, and learn about their career journeys, we created Stories of Women in Neuroscience (Stories of WiN). Stories of WiN shares the scientific and personal stories of women neuroscientists with diverse backgrounds, identities, research interests, and at various career stages. From >70 women highlighted thus far, a major theme has emerged: there is not a single archetype of a woman neuroscientist, nor a single path to "success." Yet, through these diverse experiences run common threads, such as the importance of positive early research experiences, managing imposter syndrome, the necessity of work-life balance, and the challenges of fitting into-or resisting-the "scientist mold" within a patriarchal, racialized academic system. These commonalities reveal important considerations for supporting women neuroscientists. Through the lens of women highlighted by Stories of WiN, we explore the similarities among their journeys and detail specific actionable items to help encourage, support, and sustain women in neuroscience.

Assessing researchers' capabilities, opportunities, and motivation to conduct equity-oriented dissemination and implementation research, an exploratory cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

A recent paradigm shift has led to an explicit focus on enhancing health equity through equity-oriented dissemination and implementation (D&I) research. However, the integration and bidirectional learning across these two fields is still in its infancy and siloed. This exploratory study aimed to examine participants' perceived capabilities, opportunities, and motivations to conduct equity-oriented D&I research.

METHODS

We conducted an exploratory cross-sectional survey distributed online from December 2020 to April 2021. Participants were recruited at either D&I or health disparities-oriented conferences, meetings, through social media, or personal outreach via emails. Informed by the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model (COM-B), the survey queried respondents about different aspects of engaging in and conducting equity-oriented D&I research. All analyses were conducted in SPSS Version 27.0.

RESULTS

A total of 180 participants responded to the survey. Most participants were women (81.7%), white (66.1%), academics (78.9%), and faculty members (53.9%). Many reported they were advanced (36.7%) or advanced beginners (27.8%) in the D&I field, and a substantial proportion (37.8%) reported being novice in D&I research that focused on health equity. Participants reported high motivation (e.g., 62.8% were motivated to apply theories, models, frameworks for promoting health equity in D&I research), but low capability to conduct equity-oriented D&I research (e.g., 5% had the information needed for promoting health equity in D&I research). Most participants (62.2%) reported not having used measures to examine equity in their D&I projects, and for those who did use measures, they mainly used individual-level measures (vs. organizational- or structural-level measures). When asked about factors that could influence their ability to conduct equity-oriented D&I research, 44.4% reported not having the skills necessary, and 32.2% stated difficulties in receiving funding for equity-oriented D&I research.

CONCLUSIONS

Study findings provide empirical insight into the perspectives of researchers from different backgrounds on what is needed to conduct equity-oriented D&I research. These data suggest the need for a multi-pronged approach to enhance the capability and opportunities for conducting equity-oriented D&I work, such as: training specifically in equity-oriented D&I, collaboration between D&I researchers with individuals with expertise and lived experience with health equity research, funding for equity-oriented D&I research, and recognition of the value of community engaged research in promotion packages.

Gender Diversity in the Psychiatric Workforce: It's Still a (White) Man's World in Psychiatry

Academic psychiatry has slightly higher rates of women in the upper ranks and leadership positions than academic medicine as a whole but women continue to be seriously underrepresented. Psychiatry departments should take specific steps to address barriers for women in psychiatry including harassment and discrimination, Imposter Syndrome, lack of mentorship and sponsorship, work-life integration issues, and overinvolvement in nonpromotion generating activities. Addressing these barriers within academic psychiatry will improve the environment for all minorities.

U.S. Women Faculty in the Social Sciences Also Face Gender Inequalities

There is a national interest in United States women's underrepresentation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); however, gender inequality in the social sciences has not received similar attention. Although women increasingly earn postgraduate degrees in the social sciences, women faculty still experience gender inequities. Consistent gender inequities include slower career advancement, blunted salaries, unequal workloads, work-life conflict, systemic gender biases, underrepresentation in positions of power, and hostile work environments. Cultural biases suggest that once women have achieved parity, gender bias no longer exists. This review challenges that notion by providing evidence from social science domains in which women are well-represented but continue to face systemic gender biases. We examine cultural influences on gender representation and career advancement in psychology, economics, political science, sociology, and anthropology. We make interdisciplinary comparisons of career trajectories and salaries using national data, documenting patterns across the social sciences. For example, women economists face gendered standards in publishing, and women political scientists are less likely to have their work cited than men. Furthermore, data show that salaries become stagnant as the representation of women in these fields increases. These disparities reflect cultural biases in perceptions of women's competence stemming from social role theory. We discuss best practices to address these problems, focusing on the ADVANCE organizational change programs funded by the National Science Foundation that target (a) improving academic climate, (b) providing professional development, and (c) fostering social networking. Federally supported interventions can reveal systemic gender biases in academia and reduce gender disparities for women academics in the social sciences.

Female Surgeons for Obesity Treatment: a Snapshot Sampling in Academic Productivity : The Role of Women in Obesity Surgery

The proportion of females choosing a career in surgery is lower than that of males. Through the Obesity Surgery and SOARD journals of 2018-2020, the number of articles with female first/senior authors was identified and their characteristics were assessed. Almost 40% of the published papers were written by females, being mostly original and from University Hospitals, although the difference in the numbers between journals was prominent (p = 0.011). Articles with a female as first author had a female or male as senior, at a ratio 1:2, while less than 10% of female senior authors had a male as first. The number of females as corresponding authors in SOARD was significantly higher (p < 0.001). The findings of the present study underline the existing gender inequity in bariatric surgery.

Creating work environments where people of all genders in gynecologic oncology can thrive: An SGO evidence-based review

Equality, equity, and parity in the workplace are necessary to optimize patient care across all aspects of medicine. Gender-based inequities remain an obstacle to quality of care, including within the now majority women subspecialty of gynecologic oncology. The results of the 2020 SGO State of the Society Survey prompted this evidence-based review. Evidence related to relevant aspects of the clinical care model by which women with malignancies are cared for is summarized. Recommendations are made that include ways to create work environments where all members of a gynecologic oncology clinical care team, regardless of gender, can thrive. These recommendations aim to improve equality and equity within the specialty and, in doing so, elevate the care that our patients receive.

Gender Distribution of Scholarship and Measures of National Recognition in Hospital Medicine

OBJECTIVE

Our specific aim was to assess the gender distribution of aspects of scholarly productivity and professional standing for pediatric hospital medicine over a 5-year period. We also evaluated for correlation between the makeup of editorial boards, conference planning committees, and chosen content.

METHODS

We reviewed scholarly publications, presentations, editorial boards, planning committees, awardees, and society leadership in pediatric hospital medicine from 2015 to 2019 and determined gender using published methods to assess for differences between observed proportions of women authors and presenters and the proportion of women in the field.

RESULTS

The field of pediatric hospital medicine at large is 69% women (95% confidence internal [CI] 68%-71%), and an estimated 57% of senior members are women (95% CI 54%-60%). We evaluated 570 original science manuscripts and found 67% (95% CI 63%-71%) women first authors and 49% (95% CI 44%-53%) women senior authors. We evaluated 1093 presentations at national conferences and found 69% (95% CI 65%-72%) women presenters of submitted content and 44% (95% CI 37%-51%) women presenters of invited content. Senior authorship and invited speaking engagements demonstrated disproportionately low representation of women when compared with senior members of the field (senior authorship, P = .002; invited presenters, P < .001). Strong positive correlation between gender composition of conference planning committees and selected content was also noted (r = 0.94).

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated representative gender distribution for some aspects of scholarly productivity in pediatric hospital medicine; however, a lack of gender parity exists in senior roles.

Supporting Students in Health Service Psychology Training: A Theory-Driven Approach to Meeting the Diverse Needs of Trainees

The demographic characteristics of health service psychology (HSP) trainees have shifted considerably in recent decades. In what was previously a field comprised predominantly of White men, HSP trainees today represent a much broader range of backgrounds. Nonetheless, the leadership within HSP training (e.g., faculty) remains relatively homogenous, and the training approaches (e.g., mentorship styles, expectations for students) may have failed to evolve to meet the needs of this more diverse pool of trainees. Therefore, there is reason to believe that the training needs of students who represent an array of diverse backgrounds, identities, and life experiences may not be met by existing conceptualizations of and approaches to training. In this article, we discuss several training issues that are specific to a range of trainees, including women, trainees who are parents, sexual/gender minoritized trainees, trainees with disabilities, and trainees from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. We draw from social-ecological and feminist mentoring theories to provide recommendations, consistent with APA's (2018) Standards of Accreditation for HSP Doctoral Programs in order to offer recommendations for optimizing the training experiences of HSP trainees across multiple levels of analysis.

Gender Disparity in Academic Gastroenterology: Beginning of the End of the Underrepresentation of Women?

BACKGROUND

Though there are an increasing number of female medical graduates, women remain underrepresented in academic medicine. There have been several reasons to explain this gender disparity, including marital status, number of children, number of hours worked, job flexibility, perceptions of women as inferior leaders, gender bias, sexual harassment, and unsupportive academic climates.

AIMS

This study aimed to investigate the relationship between scholarly productivity and the representation of female gastroenterologists in academia. Specifically, scholarly productivity measured by the h-index and academic rank were explored to determine if there were gender disparities in academic productivity and rank in gastroenterology.

METHODS

Gastroenterology departmental listings were obtained from the Fellowship and Residency Interactive Database of the American Medical Association. The Scopus database was used to record each physician's h-index. Statistical analyses were conducted with Wilcoxon rank-sum test, which compared matched samples by academic rank, and ANOVA tests, which compared multiple academic ranks.

RESULTS

Out of 1703 academic gastroenterologists, women account for 25% of academic physicians. Women have statistically lower h-indices at the level of Assistant Professor (p = 0.0012), and at the level of Chair (p = 0.01). There was no difference in h-indices between male and female at the rank of Associate Professor and Professor.

CONCLUSIONS

While these results mirror patterns appreciated in other fields of medicine, the results at the rank of Chair may suggest that despite the lower h-index compared to their male counterparts, females are perceived as having strong inherent leadership skills outside of academic productivity that are also conducive to leading a department and may be contributing to their rise to Chair.

Representation of Investigators by Gender Among Authors of Phase 3 Oncology Trials Worldwide

This cross-sectional study uses worldwide oncology trial data to examine the proportion of female investigators in each country and across all trials.

Training Physician‒Scientists for Careers in Investigative Dermatology

Physician‒scientists have made countless discoveries, and their dwindling numbers are a significant concern. Although dermatology has become an increasingly popular destination for physician‒scientist trainees, the proportion of trainees who pursue scientific research careers after training is among the lowest of all medical specialties. To investigate this problem, we surveyed a national cohort of dermatology educators, physician‒scientist track program directors, and National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases T32 directors for opinions regarding physician‒scientist training in dermatology. On the basis of these findings and to help address the issue, we propose a training practicum and provide a resource for funding opportunities to help guide trainees and institutions interested in supporting investigative dermatologists. We also discuss the important roles of department chairs and institutions in fashioning an environment conducive to physician‒scientist training. The information and recommendations provided in this paper may help to improve the recruitment, training, development, and retention of investigative dermatologists and future leaders in this field.

An analysis of the Clinical and Translational Science Award pilot project portfolio using data from Research Performance Progress Reports

Introduction:

Pilot projects (“pilots”) are important for testing hypotheses in advance of investing more funds for full research studies. For some programs, such as Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) supported by the National Center for Translational Sciences, pilots also make up a significant proportion of the research projects conducted with direct CTSA support. Unfortunately, administrative data on pilots are not typically captured in accessible databases. Though data on pilots are included in Research Performance Progress Reports, it is often difficult to extract, especially for large programs like the CTSAs where more than 600 pilots may be reported across all awardees annually. Data extraction challenges preclude analyses that could provide valuable information about pilots to researchers and administrators.

Methods:

To address those challenges, we describe a script that partially automates extraction of pilot data from CTSA research progress reports. After extraction of the pilot data, we use an established machine learning (ML) model to determine the scientific content of pilots for subsequent analysis. Analysis of ML-assigned scientific categories reveals the scientific diversity of the CTSA pilot portfolio and relationships among individual pilots and institutions.

Results:

The CTSA pilots are widely distributed across a number of scientific areas. Content analysis identifies similar projects and the degree of overlap for scientific interests among hubs.

Conclusion:

Our results demonstrate that pilot data remain challenging to extract but can provide useful information for communicating with stakeholders, administering pilot portfolios, and facilitating collaboration among researchers and hubs.

More than grit: growing and sustaining physician-scientists in obstetrics and gynecology

Obstetricians know the statistics-1 out of every 10 babies is born premature; preeclampsia affects 1 in 25 pregnant people; the United States has the highest rate of maternal mortality in the developed world. Yet, physicians and scientists still do not fully understand the biology of normal pregnancy, let alone what causes these complications. Obstetrics and gynecology-trained physician-scientists are uniquely positioned to fill critical knowledge gaps by addressing clinically-relevant problems through fundamental research and interpreting insights from basic and translational studies in the clinical context. Within our specialty, however, physician-scientists are relatively uncommon. Inadequate guidance, lack of support and community, and structural barriers deter fellows and early stage faculty from pursuing the physician-scientist track. One approach to help cultivate the next generation of physician-scientists in obstetrics and gynecology is to demystify the process and address the common barriers that contribute to the attrition of early stage investigators. Here, we review major challenges and propose potential pathways forward in the areas of mentorship, obtaining protected research time and resources, and ensuring diversity, equity, and inclusion, from our perspective as early stage investigators in maternal-fetal medicine. We discuss the roles of early stage investigators and leaders at the institutional and national level in the collective effort to retain and grow our physician-scientist workforce. We aim to provide a framework for early stage investigators initiating their research careers and a starting point for discussion with academic stakeholders. We cannot afford to lose the valuable contributions of talented individuals due to modifiable factors or forfeit our voices as advocates for the issues that impact pregnant populations.

Gender differences in the medical industries’ payments to physicians: a systematic review

Purpose

This paper aims to explore gender differences in payments made to physicians by the pharmaceutical and medical device industries via the performance of a systematic review of articles based on the Open Payments Database (OPD).

Design/methodology/approach

Three databases (Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed) were searched for articles published from September 30, 2014 to May 10, 2019, using two search terms: “Sunshine Act” and “Open Payments.” The systematic review is reported according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

Findings

The search identified 359 abstracts. Thirty-nine articles were selected for full review, and 17 of these met the inclusion criteria. Although the articles considered are based on the same database, they adopt diverse approaches and analyses are conducted in different ways. A substantial proportion of the studies show total payments from the two industries to be higher for male physicians than for female physicians. However, a few exceptions exist, higher female mean or median values occurring for payments involving research, ownership, honoraria, grants, royalties/licenses and travel/lodgings. Also, in the case of obstetric–gynecological specializations, a higher proportion of women than men are shown to cooperate with the industries.

Originality/value

There is gender inequality in terms of industries’ funding for doctors. While analyses of secondary OPD data show that a gender inequality exists, they do not provide an understanding of why this occurs. However, from the exceptions identified, it can be speculated that this phenomenon is connected with greater adherence to ethical standards on the part of female physicians and/or the likelihood that fewer opportunities for industrial cooperation are extended to them.

Turning the Tide for Academic Women in STEM: A Postpandemic Vision for Supporting Female Scientists

The "leaky pipeline" of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), which is especially acute for academic mothers, continues to be problematic as women face continuous cycles of barriers and obstacles to advancing further in their fields. The severity and prevalence of the COVID-19 pandemic both highlighted and exacerbated the unique challenges faced by female graduate students, postdocs, research staff, and principal investigators because of lockdowns, quarantines, school closures, lack of external childcare, and heightened family responsibilities, on top of professional responsibilities. This perspective provides recommendations of specific policies and practices that combat stigmas faced by women in STEM and can help them retain their careers. We discuss actions that can be taken to support women within academic institutions, journals, government/federal centers, university-level departments, and individual research groups. These recommendations are based on prior initiatives that have been successful in having a positive impact on gender equity─a central tenet of our postpandemic vision for the STEM workforce.

RASE: Modeling cumulative disadvantage due to marginalized group status in academia

We propose a framework of Resources, Achievement, Status, and Events (RASE) that allows the many disparate but well-documented phenomena affecting underrepresented groups in STEM to be assembled into a story of career trajectories, illuminating the possible cumulative impact of many small inequities. Our framework contains a three-component deterministic cycle of (1) production of Achievements from Resources, (2) updated community Status due to Achievements, and (3) accrual of additional Resources based on community Status. A fourth component, stochastic Events, can influence an individual’s level of Resources or Achievements at each time step of the cycle. We build a specific mathematical model within the RASE framework and use it to investigate the impact of accumulated disadvantages from multiple compounding variables. We demonstrate that the model can reproduce data of observed disparities in academia. Finally, we use a publicly available visualization and networking tool to provide a sandbox for exploring career outcomes within the model. The modeling exercise, results, and visualization tool may be useful in the context of training STEM faculty to recognize and reduce effects of bias.

Winners and Losers in Academic Productivity During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Is the Gender Gap Widening for Faculty?

Background: The coronavirus pandemic accelerated academic medicine into the frontline of research and clinical work, leaving some faculty exhausted, and others with unanticipated time off. Women were particularly vulnerable, having increased responsibilities in both academic work and caregiving. Methods: The authors sought to determine faculty's responses to the pandemic, seeking predictors of accelerated versus decelerated academic productivity and work-life balance. In this survey of 424 faculty from a private Midwest academic medical center completed in August-September 2020, faculty rated multiple factors both "pre-COVID" and "during the COVID-19 lockdown," and a change score was calculated. Results: In a binary logistic regression model comparing faculty whose self-rated academic productivity increased with those whose productivity decreased, the authors found that controlling for multiple factors, men were more than twice as likely to be in the accelerated productivity group as women. In a similar model comparing partnered faculty whose self-rated work-life balance increased with partnered faculty whose work-life balance decreased, being in the positive work-life balance group was predicted by increased academic productivity, increased job stress, and having higher job priority than your partner. Conclusions: While the COVID-19 pandemic placed huge stressors on academic medical faculty, pandemic placed huge stressors on academic medical faculty, some experienced gains in productivity and work-life balance, with potential to widen the gender gap. As academic medicine evolves post-COVID, leaders should be aware that productivity and work-life balance predict each other, and that these factors have connections to work location, stress, and relationship dynamics, emphasizing the inseparable connections between work and life success.

Female Physicians Earn An Estimated $2 Million Less Than Male Physicians Over A Simulated 40-Year Career

Differences in income between male and female academic physicians are well known, but differences for community physicians and career differences in income have not been quantified. We used earnings data from 80,342 full-time US physicians to estimate career differences in income between men and women. The differences in annual income between male and female physicians that we observed in our simulations increased most rapidly during the initial years of practice. Over the course of a simulated forty-year career, male physicians earned an average adjusted gross income of $8,307,327 compared with an average of $6,263,446 for female physicians-an absolute adjusted difference of $2,043,881 and relative difference of 24.6 percent. Gender differences in career earnings were largest for surgical specialists ($2.5 million difference), followed by nonsurgical specialists ($1.6 million difference) and primary care physicians ($0.9 million difference). These findings imply that over the course of a career, female US physicians were estimated to earn, on average, more than $2 million less than male US physicians after adjustment for factors that may otherwise explain observed differences in income, such as hours worked, clinical revenue, practice type, and specialty.

Gender Distribution of Deans Among US Medical Schools: Towards Equity in Academic Medicine

BACKGROUND

Less than half of medical school professorships and decanal ranks are held by women. Our study investigates the gender-based geographical distribution and differences in lifetime peer-reviewed publications, H-index, and grant funding by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of all allopathic medical school deans in the United States (US).

METHODS

A cross-sectional cohort study utilizing data from US allopathic medical school websites, PubMed, and the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools regarding lifetime peer-reviewed publications and quantity/monetary sum of NIH grants received by medical school deans. Descriptive statistics, independent sample T-tests, and ANOVA were performed with statistical significance defined as P < 0.05.

RESULTS

Women occupied 33/157 (21.0%) dean positions overall. Compared to women, men possess higher mean number of lifetime peer-reviewed publications (112.0 vs. 55.2, P = 0.001) and H-index (43.2 vs. 25.7, P = 0.001); however, there are no differences in the mean number of NIH grants (27.5 vs. 19.1, P = 0.323) nor mean total NIH funding received ($18,931,336 vs. $14,289,529, P = 0.524). While significant differences in mean H-index between all US regions were found (P = 0.002), no significant differences exist between major US regions regarding the mean lifetime publication count (P = 0.223), NIH grants received (P = 0.200), nor total NIH funding (P = 0.824) received.

CONCLUSION

A significant discrepancy in the gender distribution, lifetime peer-reviewed publications, and H-index of allopathic medical school deans exists across the US, highlighting the need for adequate support for women in academic medicine. Greater implementation of mentorship, increased institutional support, and diversity training can improve the representation of women in medical school decanal positions.

The Changing Demographics of Surgical Trainees in General and Vascular Surgery: National Trends over the Past Decade

OBJECTIVE

Recent initiatives have targeted the issue of gender and ethnic/racial disparities in general surgery and vascular surgery. However, the prevalence of these disparities in general and vascular surgical training programs is unknown.

DESIGN

A retrospective analysis was conducted using data from three separate sources, including the US Graduate Medical Education annual report, Electronic Residency Application Service database, and National Resident Matching Program annual report. Demographic information regarding gender distribution and ethnic/racial identity was collected from 328 general surgery residency programs, 59 vascular surgery residency programs, and 100 vascular surgery fellowship programs across the US. The primary outcomes of this study were to evaluate national trends in gender and ethnic diversity in general surgery and vascular surgery training programs, including both traditional fellowship and integrated residency paradigms.

RESULTS

From 2011-2020, general surgery residency programs showed a positive trend towards both female applicants (from 31.9%-41.5%) and trainees (from 36.2%-43.1%) (p < 0.0001 each). The proportion of minority trainees decreased, primarily among Black (from 7.2%-5.4%) and Asian trainees (from 21.5%-19.2%) (p < 0.0001 each). Concurrently, the number of vascular integrated residency programs grew from 27 to 59, resulting in a fivefold increase in trainees (from 64-335). Despite this growth, there was no change in the proportion of women applicants or trainees for both vascular integrated residency (24.9% applicants; 36.2% trainees) and fellowship programs (27.4% applicants; 25.9% trainees) over the study period (p = 0.11, 0.89, 0.43, and 0.13 respectively). Moreover, there was no significant change in proportion of minority trainees in both vascular integrated residency and fellowship programs.

CONCLUSION

While general surgery programs have expanded in proportion of both female applicants and trainees, racial diversity has decreased. Gender and racial diversity in vascular training has not changed. Future initiatives in general and vascular surgery should focus on recruitment and promotion of proficient women and minority trainees.

Scientific prizes and the extraordinary growth of scientific topics

Fast growing scientific topics have famously been key harbingers of the new frontiers of science, yet, large-scale analyses of their genesis and impact are rare. We investigated one possible factor connected with a topic’s extraordinary growth: scientific prizes. Our longitudinal analysis of nearly all recognized prizes worldwide and over 11,000 scientific topics from 19 disciplines indicates that topics associated with a scientific prize experience extraordinary growth in productivity, impact, and new entrants. Relative to matched non-prizewinning topics, prizewinning topics produce 40% more papers and 33% more citations, retain 55% more scientists, and gain 37 and 47% more new entrants and star scientists, respectively, in the first five-to-ten years after the prize. Funding do not account for a prizewinning topic’s growth. Rather, growth is positively related to the degree to which the prize is discipline-specific, conferred for recent research, or has prize money. These findings reveal new dynamics behind scientific innovation and investment.

Scientific revolutions have famously inspired scientists and innovation but large-scale analyses of scientific revolutions in modern science are rare. Here, the authors investigate one possible factor connected with a topic’s extraordinary growth—scientific prizes.

The 100,000 most influential scientists rank: the underrepresentation of Brazilian women in academia

Despite the progress observed in recent years, women are still underrepresented in science worldwide, especially at top positions. Many factors contribute to women progressively leaving academia at different stages of their career, including motherhood, harassment and conscious and unconscious discrimination. Implicit bias plays a major negative role in recognition, promotions and career advancement of female scientists. Recently, a rank of the most influential scientists in the world was created based on several metrics, including the number of published papers and citations. Here, we analyzed the representation of Brazilian scientists in this rank, focusing on gender. Female Brazilian scientists are greatly underrepresented in the rank (11% in the Top 100,000; 18% in the Top 2%). Possible reasons for this observed scenario are related to the metrics used to rank scientists, which reproduce and amplify the well-known implicit bias in peer-review and citations. Male scientists have more self-citation than female scientists and positions in the rank varied when self-citations were included, suggesting that self-citation by male scientists increases their visibility. Discussions on the repercussions of such ranks are pivotal to avoid deepening the gender gap in science.

Training Programs for Fundamental and Clinician-Scientists: Balanced Outcomes for Graduates by Gender

Background:

Women scientists are less likely to obtain Assistant Professorship and achieve promotion, and obtain less grant funding than men. Scientist/clinician-scientist training programs which provide salary awards as well as training and mentorship are a potential intervention to improve outcomes among women scientists. We hypothesized whether a programmatic approach to scientist/clinician-scientist training is associated with improved outcomes for women scientists in Canada when compared with salary awards alone. Trainees within the Kidney Research Scientist Core Education and National Training Program (KRESCENT), Canadian Child Health Clinician Scientist Program (CCHCSP), and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) salary award programs were evaluated.

Objective:

To examine whether the structured KRESCENT training program with salary support improves academic success for women scientists relative to salary awards alone.

Design:

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting:

Canadian national research scientist and clinician-scientist training programs and salary awards.

Participants:

KRESCENT cohort (n = 59, 2005-2017), CCHCSP cohort (n = 58, 2002-2015), and CIHR (n = 571, 2005-2015) Salary Awardees for postdoctoral fellows (PDF) and new investigators (NI).

Measurements:

National operating grant funding success, achieving an academic position as an Assistant Professor for PDF, or achieving promotion to Associate Professor for NI.

Methods:

The gender distribution of each cohort was determined using first name and NamepediA and was examined for PDF and NI, followed by a description of trainee outcomes by gender and training level.

Results:

KRESCENT and CIHR PDF were balanced (12/27, 44% men and 55/116, 47% women) while CCHCSP had a higher proportion of women (13/20, 65%). KRESCENT and CCHCSP NI retained women scientists (19/32, 59% and 22/38, 58% women), whereas CIHR NI had fewer women (165/455, 36% women vs 290/455, 64% men, P = 0.01). There was a high rate of NI operating grant success (91%-95%) with no gender differences in each cohort. There was a high proportion of CCHCSP PDF who achieved an Assistant Professorship (18/20, 90%) that may be due in part to a longer follow-up period (9.3 ± 3 years) compared with KRESCENT PDF (7/27, 26%, 0.88 ± 4.5 years), and these data were not available for CIHR PDF. Women KRESCENT NI showed increased promotion to Associate Professor (P = 0.02, 0.25 ± 3.2 years follow-up) and CCHCSP NI had high promotion rates (37/38, 97%, 6.9 ± 3.6 years follow-up) irrespective of gender. There was an overall trend toward more men pursuing biomedical research.

Limitations:

KRESCENT and CCHCSP training program cohort size and heterogeneity; assigning gender by first name may result in misclassification; lack of data on the respective applicant pools; and inability to examine intersectionality with gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation.

Conclusion:

Overall trainee performance across programs is remarkable by community standards regardless of gender. KRESCENT and CCHCSP training programs demonstrated balanced success in their PDF and NI, whereas the CIHR awardees had reduced representation of women scientists from PDF to NI. This exploratory study highlights the utility of programmatic training approaches like the KRESCENT program as potential tools to support and retain women scientists in the academic pipeline during the challenging PDF to NI transition period.

Inequalities in the distribution of National Institutes of Health research project grant funding

Previous reports have described worsening inequalities of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. We analyzed Research Project Grant data through the end of Fiscal Year 2020, confirming worsening inequalities beginning at the time of the NIH budget doubling (1998–2003), while finding that trends in recent years have reversed for both investigators and institutions, but only to a modest degree. We also find that career-stage trends have stabilized, with equivalent proportions of early-, mid-, and late-career investigators funded from 2017 to 2020. The fraction of women among funded PIs continues to increase, but they are still not at parity. Analyses of funding inequalities show that inequalities for investigators, and to a lesser degree for institutions, have consistently been greater within groups (i.e. within groups by career stage, gender, race, and degree) than between groups.

State of Women in Medicine: History, Challenges, and the Benefits of a Diverse Workforce

Women in medicine have made progress since Elizabeth Blackwell: the first women to receive her medical degree in the United States in 1849. Yet although women currently represent just over one-half of medical school applicants and matriculates, they continue to face many challenges that hinder them from entering residency, achieving leadership positions that exhibit final decision-making and budgetary power, and, in academic medicine, being promoted. Challenges include gender bias in promotion, salary inequity, professional isolation, bullying, sexual harassment, and lack of recognition, all of which lead to higher rates of attrition and burnout in women physicians. These challenges are even greater for women from groups that have historically been marginalized and excluded, in all aspects of their career and especially in achieving leadership positions. It is important to note that, in several studies, it was indicated that women physicians are more likely to adhere to clinical guidelines, provide preventive care and psychosocial counseling, and spend more time with their patients than their male peers. Additionally, some studies reveal improved clinical outcomes with women physicians. Therefore, it is critical for health care systems to promote workforce diversity in medicine and support women physicians in their career development and success and their wellness from early to late career.

Double Discrimination, the Pay Gap in Gynecologic Surgery, and Its Association With Quality of Care

In this commentary, we describe historical and other influences that drive "double discrimination" in gynecologic surgery-lower pay in the area of surgery that boasts the largest proportion of female surgeons and is focused on female patients and explore how it results in potentially lower quality care. Insurers reimburse procedures for women at a lower rate than similar procedures for men, although there is no medically justifiable reason for this disparity. The wage gap created by lower reimbursement rates disproportionately affects female surgeons, who are disproportionately represented among gynecologic surgeons. This contributes to a large wage gap in surgery for women. Finally, poor reimbursement for gynecologic surgery pushes many obstetrics and gynecology surgeons to preferentially perform obstetric services, resulting in a high prevalence of low-volume gynecologic surgeons, a metric that is closely tied to higher complication rates. Creating equity in reimbursement for gynecologic surgery is one important and ethically required step forward to gender equity in medicine for patients and surgeons.

Gender bias in academia: A lifetime problem that needs solutions

Despite increased awareness of the lack of gender equity in academia and a growing number of initiatives to address issues of diversity, change is slow, and inequalities remain. A major source of inequity is gender bias, which has a substantial negative impact on the careers, work-life balance, and mental health of underrepresented groups in science. Here, we argue that gender bias is not a single problem but manifests as a collection of distinct issues that impact researchers' lives. We disentangle these facets and propose concrete solutions that can be adopted by individuals, academic institutions, and society.

Current Status and Future Strategies for Mentoring Women in Neurology

The American Academy of Neurology's (AAN) 2017 Gender Disparity Report identified improving mentorship as a key intervention to fill the leadership and pay gaps for women in neurology. Here we summarize the literature on mentoring women, provide an outline of ideal components of programs geared toward closing gender gaps, and present a mentoring program for AAN members. The strategies discussed share similarities with those for closing gaps related to race, ethnicity, and religion. Developing effective mentorship and sponsorship programs is essential to ensure a sufficiently diverse pool of academic faculty and private practitioners and to establish equal representation in leadership roles in this field.