Mentorship of Women in Academic Medicine: a Systematic Review

Gender discrepancy in research activities during radiology residency

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the presence of gender disparity in academic involvement during radiology residency and to identify and characterize any gender differences in perceived barriers for conducting research.

METHODS

An international call for participation in an online survey was promoted via social media and through multiple international and national radiological societies. A 35-question survey invited radiology trainees worldwide to answer questions regarding exposure and barriers to academic radiology during their training. Gender differences in response proportions were analyzed using either Fisher's exact or chi-squared tests.

RESULTS

Eight hundred fifty-eight participants (438 men, 420 women) from Europe (432), Asia (241), North and South America (144), Africa (37), and Oceania (4) completed the survey. Fewer women radiology residents were involved in research during residency (44.3%, 186/420 vs 59.4%, 260/438; p ≤ 0.0001) and had fewer published original articles (27.9%, 117/420 vs. 40.2%, 176/438; p = 0.001). Women were more likely to declare gender as a barrier to research (24.3%, 102/420 vs. 6.8%, 30/438; p < 0.0001) and lacked mentorship/support from faculty (65%, 273/420 vs. 55.7%, 244/438; p = 0.0055). Men were more likely to declare a lack of time (60.3%, 264/438 vs. 50.7%, 213/420; p = 0.0049) and lack of personal interest (21%, 92/438 vs. 13.6%, 57/420, p = 0.0041) in conducting research.

CONCLUSION

Fewer women were involved in academic activities during radiology residency, resulting in fewer original published studies compared to their men counterparts. This is indicative of an inherent gender imbalance. Lack of mentorship reported by women radiologists was a main barrier to research.

Burnout and attrition: Expanding the gender gap in neurology?

Neurology faces an increasing shortage of neurologists in the United States due to a growing demand for neurologic services. A 7% increase in the supply of neurologists is predicted from 2012 to 2025, whereas the demand will rise by 16%. An increase in the neurology workforce is critical to meet the demands, and a significant gender gap remains within the workforce that must be addressed to further ease the discrepancy between supply and demand. Individual, institutional, and societal factors contribute to this gender discrepancy and potentially result in the burnout or soft attrition of women from neurology. These factors, including earning disparity between male and female neurologists, one of the largest gaps in pay for any medical specialty, and the lack of representation at higher academic levels with only 12% (14 of 113) of neurology department chairs at academic medical centers being women, could lead to increased attrition of women from neurology. Identifying and mitigating these factors may help narrow the gender gap and increase the supply of neurologists to better meet future demand.

Women in Pediatrics: Progress, Barriers, and Opportunities for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion

Gender bias and discrimination have profound and far-reaching effects on the health care workforce, delivery of patient care, and advancement of science and are antithetical to the principles of professionalism. In the quest for gender equity, medicine, with its abundance of highly educated and qualified women, should be leading the way. The sheer number of women who comprise the majority of pediatricians in the United States suggests this specialty has a unique opportunity to stand out as progressively equitable. Indeed, there has been much progress to celebrate for women in medicine and pediatrics. However, many challenges remain, and there are areas in which progress is too slow, stalled, or even regressing. The fair treatment of women pediatricians will require enhanced and simultaneous commitment from leaders in 4 key gatekeeper groups: academic medical centers, hospitals, health care organizations, and practices; medical societies; journals; and funding agencies. In this report, we describe the 6-step equity, diversity, and inclusion cycle, which provides a strategic methodology to (1) examine equity, diversity, and inclusion data; (2) share results with stakeholders; (3) investigate causality; (4) implement strategic interventions; (5) track outcomes and adjust strategies; and (6) disseminate results. Next steps include the enforcement of a climate of transparency and accountability, with leaders prioritizing and financially supporting workforce gender equity. This scientific and data-driven approach will accelerate progress and help pave a pathway to better health care and science.