Women Physicians and Promotion in Academic Medicine

Structural Sexism and Cancer Care: The Effects on the Patient and Oncologist

Despite progress toward equity within our broad social context, the domains of gender as a social, cultural, and structural variable continue to exert influence on the delivery of oncology care. Although there have been vast advances in our understanding of the biological underpinnings of cancer and significant improvements in clinical care, disparities in cancer care for all women-including cisgender, transgender, and gender diverse women-persist. Similarly, despite inclusion within the oncology physician workforce, women and gender minorities, particularly those with additional identities under-represented in medicine, still face structural barriers to clinical and academic productivity and career success. In this article, we define and discuss how structural sexism influences both the equitable care of patients with cancer and the oncology workforce and explore the overlapping challenges in both realms. Solutions toward creating environments where patients with cancer of any gender receive optimal care and all physicians can thrive are put forward.

Addressing Barriers to Career Development Awards for Early Career Women in Pediatric Psychology

OBJECTIVE

To provide person and system-level recommendations for supporting early career women in the field of pediatric psychology in writing and submitting National Institutes of Health (NIH) Career Development Award (K award) applications. Recommendations are provided in the context of common barriers, with a focus on practical solutions.

METHODS

Publicly available NIH reporter data were compiled to examine rates of funding for Society of Pediatric Psychology (SPP) members. Barriers that women face when initiating programs of research are described and applied to the field of pediatric psychology.

RESULTS

Of current SPP members, 3.9% (n = 50) have ever received an NIH K award. Approximately 88.5% of SPP members identify as women, including 89.0% of SPP K award recipients. A table of person- and systems-level recommendations is provided to offer strategies for mentees, mentors/sponsors, institutions, and national organizations to address the barriers discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

By addressing gender-specific barriers to submitting K award applications, we hope to increase the number of women K awardees and support the scientific advancement of pediatric psychology.

An innovative approach to career development and promotion of diverse faculty

Women and persons from racial and ethnic populations underrepresented in medicine (URiM) comprise a substantially lower proportion of academic internal medicine faculty, particularly at senior ranks (associate professors and professors). Numerous factors lead to this inequity which has broad implications for medical education and healthcare. The Emory University Division of General Internal Medicine Grady Section (GIMG) formed the Faculty Review Committee (FRC) in 2013 to address low promotion rates to senior ranks as part of a strategy to foster a more inclusive, equitable environment. The FRC systematically and proactively reviews all GIMG faculty years prior to possible promotion to provide tailored recommendations to bolster professional development and with a goal to expedite successful advancement to senior ranks. Deidentified GIMG academic rank data was compared with aggregate data from Emory University School of Medicine and the American Association of Medical Colleges. In 2020, GIMG had significantly more senior faculty compared with pre-FRC intervention (odds ratio [OR]: 3.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.65-9.42). Subgroup analyses of non-URiM women GIMG senior faculty compared with preintervention (OR: 11.6, 95% CI: 2.52-53.7), showed a significant increase. A trend toward increased URiM women faculty was also seen. Descriptive analysis suggests that the GIMG group had a higher promotion to senior ranks among women and URiM compared with national and institutional comparators. The FRC is associated with significant increases in the promotion of all faculty and non-URiM women faculty, and an increasing trend of URiM women faculty, effects which help contribute to an equitable academic medicine environment, fostering a more diverse workforce and improved patient outcomes.

Sponsorship and Negotiation for Women Otolaryngologists at Midcareer: A Content Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To explore challenges and opportunities for supporting midcareer women otolaryngologists in the areas of negotiation and sponsorship.

STUDY DESIGN

Qualitative approach using semistructured interviews.

SETTING

Online multi-institutional interviews.

METHODS

This study was performed from June to August 2021. Women otolaryngologists representing diverse subspecialties, training, and practice environments were recruited via a purposive criterion-based sampling approach. Semistructured interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed via an inductive-deductive approach to produce a thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

Among the 12 women interviewees, who represented 7 subspecialties, the majority were Caucasian (58%) and in academic practice (50%). The median residency graduation year was 2002 (range, 1982-2013). Participants expressed several challenges that women otolaryngologists face with respect to negotiation, including the absence of systematic formal negotiation training, gendered expectations that women experience during negotiations, and a perceived lack of power in negotiations. Obstacles to effective sponsorship included difficulty in the identification of sponsors and the influence of gender and related systemic biases that hindered sponsorship opportunities.

CONCLUSION

Notable gender disparities exist for negotiation and sponsorship in the midcareer stage for women otolaryngologists. Women start at a disadvantage due to a lack of negotiation training and access to sponsors, which is exacerbated by systemic gender bias and power differentials as women advance in their careers. This study highlights opportunities to improve negotiation and sponsorship for women, with the goal of promoting a more diverse workforce.

Equal Pay for Equal Work in the Dean Suite: Addressing Occupational Gender Segregation and Compensation Inequities Among Medical School Leadership

In 2022, the Association of American Medical Colleges published data from its annual Dean's Office Staff Compensation and Dean's Compensation Surveys in a new report addressing salary equity among medical school leadership. These data, disaggregated by gender and race/ethnicity, represent earnings of the senior most leaders in the dean suite and have historically been shared only with medical school Deans and principal business officers. The report shows that the highest-ranking decanal positions in U.S. medical schools are filled along the lines of traditional gender stereotypes (with men in clinical affairs and research affairs deanships and women in admissions, diversity affairs, faculty affairs, and student affairs deanships) and that the roles held mostly by men carry grander titles (e.g., senior associate dean vs assistant dean) and significantly higher salaries than those typically held by women. Additionally, within the same decanal positions, women earn lower median compensation than men. In this commentary, the authors describe limited advancement and lower compensation as foregone conclusions for women in medicine and science due to a professional model that places a premium on activities traditionally pursued by men. They define and characterize the impact of this occupational gender segregation in the dean suite and offer a roadmap for an alternative value system that recognizes complementary leadership activities across the mission areas of academic medicine and ensures that the contributions of women in the profession are appropriately recognized, valued, and rewarded.

Gender discrimination among women healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: Findings from a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Gender discrimination among women healthcare workers (HCWs) negatively impacts job satisfaction, mental health, and career development; however, few studies have explored how experiences of gender discrimination change during times of health system strain. Thus, we conducted a survey study to characterize gender discrimination during a time of significant health system strain, i.e., the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

We used a convenience sampling approach by inviting department chairs of academic medical centers in the United States to forward our online survey to their staff in January 2021. The survey included one item assessing frequency of gender discrimination, and an open-ended question asking respondents to detail experiences of discrimination. The survey also included questions about social and work stressors, such as needing additional childcare support. We used ordinal logistic regression models to identify predictors of gender discrimination, and grounded theory to characterize themes that emerged from open-ended responses.

RESULTS

Among our sample of 716 women (mean age = 37.63 years, SD = 10.97), 521 (72.80%) were White, 102 (14.20%) Asian, 69 (9.60%) Black, 53 (7.4%) Latina, and 11 (1.50%) identified as another race. In an adjusted model that included demographic characteristics and social and work stressors as covariates, significant predictors of higher gender discrimination included younger age (OR = 0.98, 95%CI = 0.96, 0.99); greater support needs (OR = 1.26, 95%CI = 1.09,1.47); lower team cohesion (OR = 0.94, 95%CI = 0.91, 0.97); greater racial discrimination (OR = 1.07, 95%CI = 1.05,1.09); identifying as a physician (OR = 6.59, 95%CI = 3.95, 11.01), physician-in-training (i.e., residents and fellows; OR = 3.85, 95%CI = 2.27,6.52), or non-clinical worker (e.g., administrative assistants; OR = 3.08, 95%CI = 1.60,5.90), compared with nurses; and reporting the need for a lot more childcare support (OR = 1.84, 95%CI = 1.15, 2.97), compared with reporting no childcare support need. In their open-ended responses, women HCWs described seven themes: 1) belittlement by colleagues, 2) gendered workload distributions, 3) unequal opportunities for professional advancement, 4) expectations for communication, 5) objectification, 6) expectations of motherhood, and 7) mistreatment by patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study underscores the severity of gender discrimination among women HCWs. Hospital systems should prioritize gender equity programs that improve workplace climate during and outside of times of health system strain.

Authorship in Urology: A Gender Reveal

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate female author representation in urologic literature as compared to the proportion of female practicing urologists.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was designed to analyze trends in women authorship of urology publications in 2019 as compared to AUA 2019 census data. The 5 highest impact urologic journals in 2019 were identified using the publicly available SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) indices. Author genders and study categorization were independently determined by 2 authors. Chi-squared test was used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

The 5 highest impact urologic journals in 2019 as per SJR were European Urology, Journal of Urology, British Journal of Urology International, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, and Nature Reviews Urology. A total of 501 publications were included for analysis. Women comprised 22.1% of first authors and 14.6% of senior authors. The proportion of publications authored by women was significantly higher than would be expected based on population proportions from the AUA 2019 census data for women as both first (P < .0001) and senior author (P =.0005). Similarly, women authorship was significantly higher than expected for basic science (P < .0001), clinical medicine (P <.0001), economics/practice management (P =.0002), editorial (P =.0027), and review/meta-analysis (P <.0001) publications.

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrates that women contribute to the urologic literature significantly more than would be expected based on the proportion of practicing female urologists. However, with the persistence of gender gap in academic medicine promotions, further research into contributing factors and strategies for improvement are needed to promote greater women representation in academia.

Gender Inequalities in Citations of Articles Published in High-Impact General Medical Journals: a Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Besides the number of publications, the number of citations is another key metric often used to compare researchers with each other. While women researchers tend to have fewer publications than their men colleagues, the data is scarce for the number of citations. We aimed to determine whether there is a gender gap in citations.

METHODS

We used Web of Science to retrieve the number of citations per year for all research articles and reviews published between January 2015 and December 2019 in fourteen high-impact general medical journals (impact factor > 5). We used Gender API to identify the gender of the first/last authors. We compared the results by gender using multivariable negative binomial regressions (adjusting for intra-cluster correlations within journals).

RESULTS

The gender of the first/last author was determined for 13,218/13,350 (99%) and 11,894/12,026 (99%) articles, respectively. The proportion of women among first/last authors was 40% and 29%, respectively. The median number of citations per year was 5 (IQR = 11.3) for women and 6.8 (IQR = 17.8) for men for first authors (IRR = 1.5 [95% CI = 1.3-1.8], p value < 0.001), and 6 (IQR = 12.4) and 7.5 (IQR = 17.4) for last authors (IRR = 1.3 [95% CI = 1.2-1.5], p value < 0.001). Articles whose first and last authors were women were the least cited and those whose first and last authors were men were the most cited.

CONCLUSION

In this cross-sectional study, we found that articles authored by women were cited less often than those authored by men. Further studies are needed to explore the reasons for these gender differences in article citations.

The Demographics and Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society Membership Status of Surgery’s Top Leadership

Purpose

Diversity and equity are priorities of many academic Departments of Surgery (DoS). Induction into Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society (AOA) denotes academic excellence and can potentially propel an academic career. Research has demonstrated that underrepresented in medicine (URM) students are less likely to be elected to AOA. In this study, we aim to examine the Chairs in American departments of surgery to examine their gender, racial, and ethnic background and AOA membership status.

Method

An anonymous survey was generated via REDCap and electronically sent to the Chair of Surgery at the top 75 DoS based on “Reputation” on Doximity Residency Navigator 2020-2021. Seven chairs with non-publicly accessible email addresses were excluded.

Results

Of the eligible chairs (N = 68), 38 (55.9%) completed the survey, of which 34 (89.5%) identified as men. AOA membership was reported in 65.8% (n = 25) respondents, with 8% (n = 2) self-identifying as women and 92% (n = 23) self-identifying as men. Of the men respondents, 74% (n = 25) reported AOA membership, while 50% of women (n = 2) reported AOA membership. Of the AOA chairs, 4% (n = 1) self-identified as Asian while 96% (n = 24) self-identified as White. The majority (57.9%, n = 22) of eligible chair respondents were White, men, and AOA members. Of the 25 AOA members, 18 (72.0%) felt their membership has positively impacted their career.

Conclusions

We found that the majority of American Surgical Chairs self-identify as white men. The number of men who were AOA was higher than women chairs.

The impact of virtual negotiation training for female faculty

Purpose

We developed a virtual interactive course for female faculty/practicing physicians and trainees to hone their skills in negotiation and sought to evaluate the impact of this on their knowledge, comfort, and skill in negotiation.

Methods

We surveyed participants as to their comfort and experience with negotiation before and after the course, as well as three months later.

Results

Of the 102 participants in the faculty course, 55 (53.9%) were academic ladder faculty, and 47 (46.1%) were in surgery or a surgical subspecialty. Participants were significantly more comfortable with negotiation initiation, strategy, and post-settlement settlement after the course (p < 0.001 for each). 91.1% found the course valuable, 92.9% felt their knowledge about negotiation increased, and 85.7% wished they would have taken this course earlier. 98.2% stated they were likely to use some of the things they learned in this course in future. Three months later, 40.7% of respondents stated they had used what they had learned: 57.7, 41.7, and 32.0% had negotiated for pay, promotion, or job-related perks, respectively. These negotiations went "better than expected" in 26.6, 30, and 37.5%, respectively. Prior to the course, only 3 (2.9%) felt that their last negotiation went "very well" or better; three months after the course, 28% felt their last negotiation after the course went "very well" or "extremely well" (p = 0.002).

Conclusion

Negotiation training can have a significant impact on female physicians' comfort in initiating negotiation, negotiation strategy and post-settlement discussions. Such training significantly increases "better than expected" negotiations.

Gender disparity in academic advancement: exploring differences among adult and pediatric radiologists

BACKGROUND

Gender imbalance in research output and academic rank in academic radiology is well-documented and long-standing. Less is known regarding this imbalance among pediatric radiologists.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize gender differences for academic rank and scholarly productivity of pediatric radiologists relative to adult radiologists.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

During summer 2021, faculty data for the top 10 U.S. News & World Report ranked adult radiology programs and the top 12 largest pediatric hospital radiology departments were collected. Information regarding self-reported gender, age, years of practice and academic rank was accessed from institutional websites and public provider databases. The h-index and the number of publications were acquired via Scopus. Group comparisons were performed using Mann-Whitney and chi-square tests.

RESULTS

Three hundred and sixty-four (160 women) pediatric and 1,170 (468 women) adult radiologists were included. Compared to adult radiologists, there were significantly fewer pediatric radiologists in advanced ranks (associate or full professor) (P = 0.024), driven by differences between male (P = 0.033) but not female radiologists (P = 0.67). Among pediatric radiologists, there was no significant difference in years in practice (P = 0.29) between males and females. There also was no significant difference in academic rank by gender (P = 0.37), different from adult radiology where men outnumber women in advanced ranks (P < 0.001). Male pediatric radiologists displayed higher academic productivity (h-index: 9.0 vs. 7.0; P = 0.01 and number of publications: 31 vs. 18; P = 0.003) than their female colleagues.

CONCLUSION

Academic pediatric radiology seems to have more equitable academic advancement than academic adult radiology. Despite similar time in the workforce, academic output among female pediatric radiologists lags that of their male colleagues.

Clinical genetics of schizophrenia and related neuropsychiatric disorders

Rare structural variants have turned out to be the long sought for genetic variants of (relatively) high effect size for schizophrenia. Delineating the 22q11.2 microdeletion as the first molecular subtype of schizophrenia was a milestone in schizophrenia research, foreshadowing a more general role for rare copy number variation (CNV) in schizophrenia. The 22q11.2 microdeletion has a high effect size - one in every four individuals born with this deletion develops schizophrenia - and a relatively high prevalence for a rare condition. Discovery of this human genetic high-risk model for schizophrenia has shown how genetics can change clinical management, and also provide new opportunities for animal and cellular models. Further new findings indicate a role for tandem repeat expansion, other less complex rare variants, and collective background effects of common variants in the genetics of schizophrenia. Thus, the genetic architecture of schizophrenia is taking shape, with further advances on the horizon.

Advancing Salary Equity in Schools of Medicine in the United States

Equity, in broad terms, is a critical issue and has been identified as an area that needs particular attention in academic medicine. Gender equity, as a subset of overall equity, has equally been shown to be lacking in academic medicine, and most medical schools and academic health systems are involved in substantive journeys to improve all dimensions of equity, diversity, and inclusion. This Invited Commentary calls for including gender-based salary equity as a foundational accomplishment for institutions seeking to achieve overall equity. In addition, the authors provide evidence and recommendations to guide institutions toward best practices in achieving salary equity. They propose 4 areas of consideration: (1) prioritization by leadership; (2) prioritization of resources to ensure success; (3) development of corrective action plans which are "automatic" and based on clear guidelines; and (4) transparency of methodology, data, and results.

The impact of a virtual negotiation training course on female trainees

BACKGROUND

Negotiation training has been posited to help reduce gender wage disparities. We sought to evaluate the impact of a virtual negotiations training course (VNTC) on female trainees.

METHODS

111 female trainees participated in the course; 42 completed both pre- and post-course surveys.

RESULTS

95.5% had no prior negotiation training. After the course, more trainees reported feeling "pretty comfortable" or "extremely comfortable" with initiating negotiation (8.3% vs. 94.1%, p < 0.001) and negotiation strategy (0% vs. 50.0%, p < 0.001). Three months later, 44% had negotiated for compensation; 63.6% felt the negotiation went "better than expected". Compared to the last major negotiation they had prior to taking the course, trainees were more likely to state that their last major negotiation after the course went "very well" or "extremely well" (2.0% vs. 50.0%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Most female medical trainees do not get negotiation training; however, these data demonstrate a significant benefit of such training.

Enhancing Mentorship Networks through the Experiences of Women Professors of Ophthalmology

Purpose  The aim of this study is to identify and characterize women professors in ophthalmology to enhance professional development and equity of women in academic ophthalmology. Design  Cross-sectional descriptive survey study. Participants  Participants in the survey were women in ophthalmology departments who have obtained full professor rank at their respective institutions. Methods  A cross-sectional study was conducted using data from an electronic survey of women ophthalmologists and researchers who had obtained full professorship rank in ophthalmology. The survey included questions about degree obtained, training path, fellowship, length and trajectory of academic career, family or medical leave participation, previous positions, and mentorship involvement. Statistical comparisons were made based on response. Main Outcome Measures  Survey responses to questions pertaining to three domains: education and training, academic career, and mentorship. Results  Women that obtained the professor title within ophthalmology largely held Doctor of Medicine/Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine degrees, were more likely to have completed fellowship training, and on average took 11 to 15 years to obtain the full professor title. The participants held a variety of other positions and titles throughout their academic careers. The vast majority of women reported having between 1 and 3 mentors during their careers with the majority also noting they currently participate in mentoring programs. Surveys were completed by 62 (30% response rate) women full professors of ophthalmology. Conclusion  The experiences women have along the academic path to professorship are described in this survey and can help to inform junior faculty. Literature review highlights the importance of mentorship for work productivity, retention, and promotion within academic medicine which is an element seen in the vast majority of our participants' career paths. Guided by the identification of women professors within departments of ophthalmology and characterization of their experiences, a new initiative called Women Professors of Ophthalmology was formed under the Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology's organizational structure in 2021. This group that is tailored for women professors of ophthalmology to foster peer mentorship and guidance is poised to increase the retention and promotion of women in academic ophthalmology.

Gender Differences of Endowed Professorship in Obstetrics and Gynecology Departments at Top Academic Institutions

Background: Gender equity is a critical issue in academic medicine. Whether there is equitable access to the prestige and resources of endowed professorships merits evaluation. We investigated this question in obstetrics and gynecology, a field that focuses on the health of women and in which women are much better represented than other specialties of medicine. Materials and Methods: We compiled a list of the top 25 United States departments of obstetrics and gynecology and contacted department chairs (and used department websites) to obtain lists of faculty and their positions. Scopus, department websites, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) RePORTER were used to collect h-Index, number of publications and citations, graduation year, degrees, gender, and NIH-funding. We conducted a bivariate comparison of endowed professorship attainment by gender using a chi-square test and created a multiple variable regression model. Results: Of the 680 obstetrics and gynecology faculty across 23 departments that had endowed chairs, 64 out of 400 women (16%) and 66 out of 280 men (24%) held endowed chairs (p = 0.01). The multivariable model suggested no independent gender difference in attainment of an endowed chair after adjusting for covariates. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this study is the first to examine gender as a variable in endowed chair allocation in top obstetrics and gynecology academic departments. Our findings suggest a significant gender difference in the allocation of endowed chairs. That difference is driven by gender differences in academic rank, graduation year, publications, and funding. To promote the intraprofessional equity necessary to optimally advance women's health, further research and intervention are necessary.

Wondering If I'd Get There Quicker If I Was a Man: Factors Contributing to Delayed Academic Advancement of Women in Infectious Diseases

Background

Gender inequities in academic advancement persist in many specialties, including Infectious Diseases (ID). Prior studies of advancement disparities have been predominantly quantitative, utilizing large physician databases or surveys. We used qualitative methods to explore ID physicians' experiences and beliefs about causes and ways to mitigate gender inequities in advancement.

Methods

We conducted semistructured focus group discussions with academic ID physicians in the United States at IDWeek 2019 to explore perceived barriers and facilitators to academic advancement. Participants were assigned to focus groups based on their academic rank and gender. We analyzed focus group transcripts using content analysis to summarize emergent themes.

Results

We convened 3 women-only focus groups (1 for instructors/assistant professors, 1 for associate professors, and 1 for full professors) and 1 men-only focus group of full professors (total N = 50). Our analyses identified several major themes on barriers to equitable academic advancement, including (1) interpersonal and institutional gender bias, (2) difficulty balancing the demands of family life with work life, and (3) gender differences in negotiation strategies.

Conclusions

Barriers to gender equity in academic advancement are myriad and enduring and span the professional and personal lives of ID physicians. In addition to swift enactment of policy changes directed at critical issues such as ending workplace harassment and ensuring adequate parental leaves for birth and nonbirth parents, leaders in academic medicine must shine a bright light on biases within the system at large and within themselves to correct these disparities with the urgency required.

Towards equality: gender representation at the Royal College of Radiologists’ Annual Scientific Meeting 2014-2021

Background: Conferences facilitate career advancement, but gender imbalances in public fora may negatively impact both women and men, and society. We aimed to describe the gender distribution of presenters at the UK’s 2014-2021 Royal College of Radiologists’ (RCR) Annual Scientific Meeting. Methods: We extracted data on presenter name, role and session type from meeting programmes. We classified gender as male or female using names, records or personal pronouns, accepting the limitations of these categories. We classified roles by prestige: lead, other (speakers and workshop faculty), proffered paper or poster presenters. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for associations between gender and binary outcomes using logistic regression.  Results: Women held 1,059 (37.5%) of 2,826 conference roles and presented 9/27 keynotes. Compared to men, women were less likely to hold other roles such as speakers and workshop faculty (OR 0.72 95% CI 0.61-0.83), and more likely to present posters (OR 1.49 95% CI 1.27-1.76). There were 60 male-only and eight women-only multi-presenter sessions. Sessions led by women had higher proportions of women speakers. The odds of roles being held by women increased during online meetings during COVID (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.36-1.91). Conclusion: The proportion of women presenters and keynote speakers reflects that of RCR membership, but not of the patient population. Disadvantage starts from the earliest career stages, prejudicing career opportunities. Efforts to improve inclusion and diversity are needed; focusing on lead roles and hybrid online/in-person formats may accelerate change.

Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in a Department of Pediatrics

The last substantial description of gender discrimination and harassment described in the journal Pediatrics was in 2019. It is unclear whether the field has made progress toward its goal of equity. We aimed to describe: (1) the recent gender-equity climate according to women and men faculty in the department of pediatrics at a single, large academic center, and (2) institutional efforts to address persistent gender discrimination and harassment. In late 2020, we distributed an anonymous survey to all department faculty that included demographic data, a modified version of the Overt Gender Discrimination at Work Scale, questions about experiences/witnessed discriminatory treatment and sexual harassment, and if those experiences negatively affected career advancement. Of 524 pediatrics faculty, 290 (55%) responded. Compared with men, women more commonly reported gender discrimination (50% vs. 4%, P < .01) and that their gender negatively affected their career advancement (50% vs 9%, P < .01). More than 50% of women reported discriminatory treatment at least annually and 38% recognized specific sexist statements; only 4% and 17% of men reported the same (P < .01 for both). We concluded that a disproportionately low number of male faculty recognized the harassment female faculty experienced. In the 18 months since, our department and university have made efforts to improve salary equity and parity in leadership representation, created an anonymous bias-reporting portal, mandated bias training, and implemented new benchmarks of "professionalism" that focus on diversity. Although we acknowledge that culture change will take time, we hope our lessons learned help promote gender equity in pediatrics more broadly.

Gender Representation Among United States Medical Board Leadership

Objective: To assess the gender composition of the American Board of Medical Specialties' (ABMS) member boards and evaluate the equitable inclusion of women and a subset of women physicians. Methods: The gender of individuals on 24 boards as of March 1, 2022, was assessed. Two benchmarks-parity (50:50 representation) and equity (compared to the proportion of practicing physicians in each medical specialty)-were utilized to determine if women are equitably represented on medical boards. Results: Four hundred forty individuals hold 449 total positions on the boards examined. Of board the members, 60.7% (267/440) are men, and 92.3% (406/440) are physicians. Physician board members comprised more men (64.0%, 260/406; p < 0.001), whereas more women comprise the 34 nonphysician board members (79.4%, 27/34; p < 0.001). Using specialty representation (equity) as the benchmark, of 22 specialties for which physician gender/sex data are available, women physicians are underrepresented on 36.4% (8/22) of boards. When parity (50%) is the comparator, 72.0% (18/25) of boards comprised less than 50% women. Compared to a 2016 analysis, the proportion of women overall (including non-physicians) increased on 68.0% (17/25), decreased on 24.0% (6/25), and remained unchanged on 8.0% (2/25) of boards in 2022. Conclusions: This study reveals mixed results in the equitable inclusion of women on ABMS boards. Our findings suggest that progress should not be assumed and that it may be subject to setbacks when it occurs. There is a need to continue to monitor the equitable inclusion of women on ABMS boards.

Gender distribution of editors and authors of reference textbooks in anatomic pathology: further edits are required

Compared to other medical specialties, pathology has a significant number of women in the academic workforce (43%). Gender disparities, particularly those disadvantaging women, are a reality in academic medicine with documented inequalities in salary, leadership opportunities, and faculty promotion. One important element of academic advancement is the recognition obtained when serving as editor or main author of reference textbooks. We aimed to document the gender distribution of editors/authors in anatomic pathology by surveying 205 subspecialty publications over a 20-year period. Gender of each editor/author was recorded after surveying their institutional or other professional biographies. When biography was non-contributory, gender was extracted from the National Provider Identifier Database. A total of 462 editors/authors were identified: 275 (59.5%) men and 187 (40.5%) women. This distribution was similar to the 2015 (39% women) and 2019 (43.4% women) Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) benchmark for US academic pathologists. The gender distribution in each of the main anatomic pathology subspecialties was estimated by surveying the websites of 20 North American academic pathology departments (totaling 1893 listed individuals). Compared to this benchmark, some subspecialties had more men in editor/author roles than their representation in academic departments including Dermatopathology (observed vs expected difference, ∆ = 41.3%), Genitourinary Pathology (∆ = 29.4%), Renal & Transplant Pathology (∆ = 22.4%) and Head & Neck Pathology (∆ = 21.6%). Other subspecialties had more women in editor/author roles than their representation in academic departments including Molecular Pathology (∆ = 31.4%), Gastrointestinal Pathology (∆ = 21.4%), and Bone & Soft Tissue Pathology (∆ = 19.4%). Editors/authors of multiple (>1) publications were frequent and skewed gender representation in most specialties. The overall gender distribution of editor/author roles is similar to that of the US pathology workforce. However, significant disparities exist in certain subspecialties affecting both women and men. This landscape can guide efforts by editors, publishers, and academic institutions to bring equity to the academic field by providing fair editorial and authorship opportunities to academic pathologists.

Gender Distribution of Authors of Evaluation Letters for Promotion at One Medical School

PURPOSE

Women remain underrepresented in key leadership positions and advanced ranks in academic medicine. This study examines the numbers of men and women letter writers for promotion candidates during a 5-year period across departments, tracks, ranks, and candidate gender.

METHOD

A descriptive study characterized the gender of evaluation letter writers for candidates for promotion to associate or full professor at the University of Minnesota Medical School between 2015 and 2020. Letter writer and candidate gender were characterized by self-identified pronouns in the faculty biography or dossier. Letter writer gender was described by candidate department, promotion track, rank, terminal degree, and gender.

RESULTS

Among 299 candidates for promotion, 172 (58%) were men and 127 (42%) were women; dossiers included 3,995 evaluation letters. Across all years, men wrote more letters than women (external letters, range, 69% in 2019-2020 to 75% in 2015-2016; internal letters, range, 67% in 2018-2019 to 77% in 2015-2016). Candidates in the family medicine and pediatrics departments had the highest percentages of letters written by women (44% and 40%, respectively). No differences were found in the number of women letter writers by candidate promotion track; however, differences were found by candidate rank (associate professor, 30%; full professor, 23%) and terminal degree (MD/DO, 25%; PhD, 33%; MD-PhD, 20%). Regardless of candidate gender, most evaluation letters were written by men. Women candidates had 15% to 20% more letters authored by women than men candidates (34%-40% vs 18%-23%).

CONCLUSIONS

The gender pattern of letter writers may reflect implicit biases regarding gender and perceived leadership status, expertise, and success. Adopting policies that promote or require gender diversity among letter writers for promotion candidates may provide an opportunity to encourage faculty to seek diverse networks and recognize the achievements of women faculty.

Disproportionate Negative Career Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Female Pediatric Cardiologists in the Northeast United States

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a dramatic impact on practicing physicians, with effects in clinical practice, academic pursuits, research endeavors, and personal lives. Women in medicine have been uniquely impacted. We examined the impact of the pandemic on the careers of pediatric cardiologists in the Northeast with an anonymous online survey. Participants reported demographic data, information on work hours, administrative burden, career satisfaction, academic productivity, and burnout. We approached 490 cardiologists and received 127 completed surveys (response rate 26%; 49% female). Among all respondents, 72% reported increased burnout, 43% reported decreased career satisfaction, and 57% reported decreased academic productivity. In multivariable ordinal regression analysis, when compared to male physicians, females were 2.4 times more likely to report decreased overall career satisfaction (p = 0.027), 2.6 times more likely to report decreased academic productivity (p = 0.028), and 2.6 times more likely to report increased feelings of burnout "to a large degree" (p = 0.022). Among all respondents, decreased career satisfaction was independently associated with increased household responsibility (OR = 4.4, p = 0.001). Increased administrative burden was independently associated with decreased academic productivity (OR = 2.6, p = 0.038). Open-ended responses highlighted loss of community due to remote work and blurring of the boundaries between work and home. Conversely, respondents appreciated flexibility to work remotely. In conclusion, the majority of pediatric cardiologists in the Northeast experienced negative career impacts due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Important gender differences emerged, with female physicians disproportionately reporting increased burnout, decreased career satisfaction, and decreased academic productivity.

Gender and graduating results in the Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Abomey-Calavi (Cotonou, Benin) program

Background: For unknown reasons female participation in anesthesiology is very low in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), especially in West Africa, and few women reach top academic or clinical positions. Objective: Women reduced professional perspectives. Design: Male and female residents’ performances were compared when they presented for their first try the graduating exams of the specialty. Settings: The Cotonou anesthesiology and intensive care training center, the second largest in French-speaking SSA, where 146 anesthesiologists from 14 African countries graduated since its creation in 1996. Method: All results at their final exams (consisting in 3 written questions and 2 clinical evaluations) were retrieved for the 125 men and 21 women who graduated. Scores obtained by women and males were compared using Student’s t tests. Their total of points was used to divide graduates into deciles. The proportion of women was counted in each decile. Results: Women performed better at both anesthesia and intensive care clinical evaluations taken separately and together (total 68.2% vs. 64.2% p=0.004) and were even with men for the three written exams (anesthesia, intensive care and basic sciences - total 66.2 % vs. 66.1% p=0.99). When clinical and written scores are added in each sector, women scored better than males for anesthesiology (69.2% vs. 65.2% p=0.01) and were even for intensive care (65.0% vs. 64.1% p=0.51). Globally women and men results were similar (67% vs. 65%, p=0.1) The proportion of women in each decile increased from the lowest to the best deciles, but the absolute low number of women gives this trend borderline significance (slope +1,56 % women per decile, p=0.046)**. Conclusion: Women performance at end-specialty exams is unlikely to explain their subsequent underrepresentation at the academic level in anesthesia and intensive care in SSA**.

Redressing injustices: how women students enact agency in undergraduate medical education

This study presents descriptions of epistemic injustice in the experiences of women medical students and provides accounts about how these students worked to redress these injustices. Epistemic injustice is both the immediate discrediting of an individual's knowledge based on their social identity and the act of persistently ignoring possibilities for other ways of knowing. Using critical narrative interviews and personal reflections over an eight-month period, 22 women students during their first year of medical school described instances when their knowledge and experience was discredited and ignored, then the ways they enacted agency to redress these injustices. Participants described three distinct ways they worked to redress injustices: reclaiming why they belong in medicine, speaking up and calling out the curriculum, and uplifting one another. This study has implications for recognizing medical students as whole individuals with lived histories and experiences and advocates for recognizing medical students' perspectives as valuable sources of knowledge.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/or transgender (LGBT) cultural competency across the intersectionalities of gender identity, sexual orientation, and race among healthcare professionals

Background

There is some data regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) cultural competency among healthcare professionals. While few studies have indicated differences in competency between heterosexual and sexual minority professionals, no known studies have assessed LGBT cultural competency among diverse groups with multiple minority identities. This study aimed to characterize healthcare professionals’ LGBT cultural competency by comparing twelve different demographically diverse healthcare professional groups based on gender identity, sexual orientation, and race.

Methods

Deidentified data (N = 2254) was aggregated from three independent studies (i.e., healthcare professional students, psychiatry residents, and dementia care providers). A series of multivariate analyses of covariance were conducted with groups (based on gender identity, sexual orientation, and race), other demographic variables as independent variables, and LGBT-Development of Clinical Skills Scale scores (Overall LGBT-DOCSS, Clinical Preparedness, Attitudinal Awareness, and Basic Knowledge) as dependent variables.

Findings

Compared to men, women reported significantly higher LGBT-DOCSS scores, except significantly lower Clinical Preparedness. Compared to cisgender, heterosexual professionals, cisgender, sexual minority professionals and gender minority professionals reported significantly higher LGBT-DOCSS scores. There were several other differences among groups, such as heterosexual, cisgender, White/Caucasian men reporting low LGBT-DOCSS scores but high Clinical Preparedness; heterosexual, cisgender, White/Caucasian women with high LGBT-DOCSS scores except Clinical Preparedness; heterosexual, racial minority professionals with low LGBT-DOCSS scores; and gender, sexual, and racial minority professionals with the highest LGBT-DOCSS scores.

Conclusions

There are subtle, yet important, differences in LGBT cultural competency among healthcare professionals. More diversity, intersectionality, and multiple minority identities appear to lead to higher competency. Appreciating these gender, sexual, and racial minority professionals’ unique perspectives may promote the development of better, more culturally affirming LGBT health education.

A Seat at the Table: The Correlation Between Female Authorship and Urology Journal Editorial Board Membership

BACKGROUND

Gender disparities in editorial board composition exist across a variety of surgical subspecialties.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate temporal variation in gender representation on the editorial boards of urology journals and assess the relationship between editorial board composition and female authorship.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We analyzed female authorship and editorial board composition between 2002 and 2020 among eight high-impact urology journals. Female publication status was assessed using publication records retrieved from PubMed. Editorial board information was manually extracted and titles were grouped for comparison as Editor-in-Chief, mid-level editor, and consulting editors.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Female representation across different editorial levels was analyzed via hierarchical logistic regression with additional terms to test for between-journal differences in overall representation and change over time. The relationship between representation on editorial boards and as publication authors was assessed at the journal level via correlation.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Eight journals and 49 412 articles were analyzed. No female has held the title of Editor-in-Chief for any of these eight journals in 18 yr. Significant growth was seen for mid-level editors, whereas no growth was seen for consulting editors. Neurourology and Urodynamics and Journal of Sexual Medicine had significantly higher than average female editorial board representation (p < 0.05). Across the eight journals, there was a statistically significant correlation between the proportion of overall female authors and female editors (r = 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.65-0.99). For all journals, the proportion of female contributing authors is greater than the proportion of female editorial board members.

CONCLUSIONS

Women in urology represent a small but increasing presence as editorial board members. Clear differences exist between journals, potentially attributable to specialty-specific demographics. Despite increasing representation, no female has ever been appointed Editor-in-Chief for any of the eight journals evaluated. At the journal-specific level, a positive correlation was observed between female editorial staff and female authorship. Given the implication of both academic authorship and editorial board assignment on academic advancement, actionable changes are outlined to guide improvement in gender diversity at the journal level.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Females are under-represented on the editorial boards for urology journals, although some roles have seen growth over time. Moreover, female editorial board membership is associated with representation of females among article authors. Gender disparities in both are noteworthy because they affect career paths and contribute to the gender gap in urology.

Gender differences in endowed chairs in Departments of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences from the top-10 NIH-funded medical schools in the US

The current study examined gender differences in endowed chairs within Departments of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences across the top 10 NIH-funded Schools of Medicine. The names of full professors with and without endowed chairs were collected and a multivariable logistic regression model was constructed to predict having an endowed chair considering gender, primary degree, NIH funding, and citation number. Secondary analyses repeated the models separately for individuals holding an MD or MD/PhD versus those with a non-MD doctoral degree (i.e., PhD). There were 715 full professors (36% women) and 115 endowed chairs (35% women). When adjusting for primary degree type, funding, and citations, women were significantly more likely to hold an endowed chair than men. Secondary models indicated that findings differed based on primary degree type. Among those with an MD or MD/PhD, gender was not associated with holding an endowed chair while among faculty with a PhD, women full professors were significantly more likely to hold an endowed chair than men. These results diverge from a prior study of Departments of Medicine in which endowed chairs were found to favor men.

Lasting Solutions for Advancement of Women of Color

Despite efforts to improve parity in the biomedical workforce, gender bias persists related to equitable pay, promotion, speaking opportunities, journal editorial positions, research funding, and leadership positions. This bias becomes more prominent for women of color and women with other intersectional identities who come from underrepresented groups. It is critical to understand the barriers that women face and why the pathway is especially challenging for women of color. In this commentary, the authors cite research related to the effects of institutional gender bias in academic medicine, including research on bias against women of color. As academic leaders who come from underrepresented groups, the authors are aware that traditional approaches to reducing this bias have not worked well, and they instead highlight promising strategies aimed at filling the pathway to leadership with women of color who are qualified and ready to take the helm. They address solutions to ensure the academic pathway is supportive. They also provide several recommendations, including: offering more opportunities for mentorship and sponsorship, improving access to formal leadership programming, modeling successful upstander initiatives, recognizing the growing role of minority-based medical societies, implementing early-career education, increasing journal editorial board representation, and expanding promotion criteria. Appropriate training, education, and partnership with internal and external stakeholders are necessary to advance leadership equity for women of color in academic medicine.

A descriptive analysis of general surgery residency program directors in the United States

BACKGROUND

Women remain underrepresented in surgery. We analyzed the demographics of general surgery program directors (PDs) and compared gender differences.

METHODS

A search of online resources was conducted, including 344 general surgery residencies.

RESULTS

340 residencies were included. 261 PDs (76.8%) were male and 79 (23.2%) were female. Females were appointed at a younger age (p < 0.0001), were appointed sooner after residency (p < 0.0001) and have served similar term lengths compared to males (p = 0.556). There was no difference in academic position, fellowship training, or scholarly output between genders. Residencies with a female PD had a greater percentage of female residents (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

General surgery PDs are predominately male with fellowship training; however the percentage of female PDs is similar to the percentage of practicing female general surgeons in the US. Gaining a better understanding of the characteristics of general surgery PDs can aid female surgeons in attaining academic leadership positions.

Endowed Chairs and Professorships: A New Frontier in Gender Equity

PURPOSE

Endowed chairs and professorships are prestigious and financially important awards that symbolize individual faculty recognition. However, data about the gender distribution of these positions are lacking. The purpose of this study was to examine the gender distribution of endowed positions at U.S. medical schools and identify strategies that have been used to promote investiture of women into these positions.

METHOD

The authors interrogated the websites for all U.S. medical schools for publicly available data. Of 38 schools that listed schoolwide information, they analyzed data from the 30 with at least 10 endowed positions. Then, they conducted interviews with deans of the 10 schools with the highest percentages of women holding endowed positions ("top 10") to understand the strategies they used to increase gender equity in this area.

RESULTS

The percentage of endowed positions held by women at the 30 schools analyzed ranged from 10.8% to 34.6%, with a mean of 21.6%. Themes that emerged from interviews with deans included (1) intentionality to identify women candidates in the selection process, (2) monitoring the numbers of women holding endowed positions, (3) inclusion of endowed positions as part of larger institutional goals on gender equity and diversity, (4) use of endowed positions to recruit, retain, and recognize women faculty, (5) purposeful fundraising to increase the number of endowed positions, and (6) institutional investment of resources to develop women faculty.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of the gender distribution of endowed positions across 30 representative U.S. medical schools revealed a significant gender disparity. Interviews with deans at the top 10 schools revealed strategies that they have used to promote equity in this important area. Implementation of a systematic national reporting process could provide schools with comparative data to gauge their progress.

What is the gender representation in authorship in later phase systemic clinical trials in biliary tract cancer (BTC)? - a retrospective review of the published literature

OBJECTIVES

Female physicians in medicine are increasing, but disparities in female authorship exist. The aim of this study was to characterise factors associated with female first (FF) and female senior (SF) authorship in later phase systemic oncological clinical trials in biliary tract cancer (BTC) and identify any changes over time.

SETTING

Embase/Medline identified trial publications in BTC (2000-2020) were included. χ2 tests and log regression were used (assessed factors associated with FF and SF authorship, including changes over time (STATA V.16)).

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

FF and SF authorship in later phase systemic oncological clinical trials in BTC.

SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Any changes over time?

RESULTS

Of 501 publications, 163 met inclusion criteria. The median percentage of female author representation in publications was 25%; there were no female authors in 13% of publications. Geographic location of the home institution of the first and senior authors was Asia (42%/42%), Europe (29%/29%), USA (24%/22%) and other (4%/6%), respectively. Overall, FF and SF author representation was 20% and 10%, respectively. The median position of the first female author was second in all the publication author lists. The phase of trial, journal-impact factor, industry funding or whether the study met its primary endpoint did not impact FF/SF author representation. More SF authors had home institutions in 'other' geographic locations (40% in 10 trials) (p=0.02) versus Asia (6%), Europe (8%) and USA (14%). There were no significant changes in FF/SF representation over time (p=0.61 and p=0.33 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

FF and SF author representation in later phase systemic clinical trial publications in BTC is low and has not changed significantly over time. The underlying reasons for this imbalance need to be better understood and addressed.

Gender Discrimination and Reporting Experiences among Academic Pediatric Faculty: A Qualitative, Single-institution Study

OBJECTIVE

Gender-harassment is well-described in academic medicine, including pediatrics. We explored academic pediatricians' qualitative descriptions of: 1) workplace gender-harassment; 2) its professional and emotional tolls; 3) barriers to and outcomes of reporting gender-harassment; and 4) tools to intervene.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional, anonymous, survey-based study within a single, large pediatrics department. Surveys included demographic items, validated measures to assess prevalence of gender-harassment, and optional, free-text boxes to elaborate. Here, we present the directed content analyses of free-text responses. Two trained qualitative researchers coded participant comments to identify types of gender-harassment, its impact, and participants' experiences reporting it. Final agreement between coders was outstanding (Kappa>0.9). A secondary, inductive analysis illustrated the emotional burdens of and opportunities to interrupt gender-harassment.

RESULTS

Of 524 total faculty, 290 (55%) completed the survey and 144 (27% of total, 50% of survey-respondents) provided text-responses. This sub-cohort was predominantly white women >5 years on-faculty. Compared to the full cohort, sub-cohort participants had more commonly witnessed/experienced workplace-harassment; 92% of sub-cohort women and 52% of men endorsed fear of reporting it. Respondents described harassment by institutional staff (24% of respondents), patients/families (35%), colleagues (50%), supervisors/leadership (50%), and the system (63%). Women used stronger emotional descriptors than men (ie, "humiliated" vs "uncomfortable"). Only 19% of women (and no men) had reported witnessed/experienced harassment; 24% of those described a negative consequence and 95% noted that no changes were made thereafter.

CONCLUSIONS

This single-center study suggests gender-harassment in academic pediatrics is common. Faculty feel fear and futility reporting it.

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.

Association Between Workforce Gender Distribution and Lifetime Earning Potential in the Pediatric Subspecialties

OBJECTIVE

Examine the relationship between the gender distribution of the pediatric subspecialty workforce and lifetime earning potential.

METHODS

We estimated lifetime earning potential for pediatric academic subspecialists using mean debt and compensation data from national physician surveys for 2019 to 2020 and examined the relationship between the workforce gender composition and lifetime earning potential across the pediatric subspecialties using linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

Subspecialties with a higher proportion of women had lower lifetime earning potential (-$55,215 in lifetime earning potential/1% increase in the percentage of female subspecialists; P value .002, 95% CI -$24,429 to -$86,000). Similarly, a higher proportion of female first-year fellows was associated with lower lifetime earning potential (-$61,808 in lifetime earning potential/1% increase in the percentage of female first-year fellows; P value .026, 95% CI -$9,210 to -$114,405).

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with patterns seen in other areas of adult medicine and surgery, pediatric subspecialties with higher proportions of women, such as adolescent medicine and endocrinology, tended to have lower lifetime earning potentials than subspecialties with higher proportions of men, such as cardiology and critical care. Lower earning subspecialties also tended to train higher proportions of women, suggesting that this trend may worsen over time as pediatrics in general and individual subspecialties in particular become increasingly female predominant.

Unequal opportunities in Italian cardiovascular research: focus on gender

BACKGROUND

Despite unanimous calls for more equitable access and support to female researchers, there are persistent barriers to women's career progression and professional fulfillment. These discriminative hurdles undermine female gender in science and have detrimental effects on research activities and female professionals and patients. There is no data on women's outlook in cardiovascular research in Italy, which limits appropriate remedial actions. We aimed at providing an updated perspective on top Italian cardiovascular researchers, focusing on women versus men comparisons.

METHODS

Top Italian cardiovascular researchers were retrieved from a dedicated and validated Scopus query. Researchers' sex was assigned according to the given name with a consensus process. Several metrics were compared, including global rank, total cites, total cites adjusted by academic age, H-index, and self-citation percentage. Bivariate and propensity score-adjusted analyses were used for inferential purposes.

RESULTS

Our analysis shows the existence of a gender gap: the number of scientific articles published by Italian male researchers in their careers is significantly higher than their female counterparts (P=0.002). For men, the year of first publication is earlier (P=0.001); they also published more articles as a single author, or single + first author or single + first + last author. Men's papers cited at least once were more than those of women (P≤0.001), and the total number of citations was significantly higher for men (P=0.002). These results remain significant both in the analysis excluding self-citations as well as in the analysis including self-citations. The single-year analysis (2019) confirms the significance of the career analysis, adding that men have a higher rank based on composite score (P=0.041, or P=0.005 if including self-citation). Finally, men have a higher percentage of self-citation in 2019 than women (P=0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

The gender disparity is still a limiting factor in Italian cardiovascular research. Despite career advancement, women continue to be underrepresented. Men retain more leadership positions in academia and maintain the edge for scientific work productions. More efforts are needed to ensure equity between men and women.

Redefining the Gender Gap in Urology Authorship: An 18-Year Publication Analysis

BACKGROUND

Academic authorship is a critical productivity metric used for academic promotion.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize temporal changes in female representation in academic authorship in ten primary urology journals as the complement of female urologists is increasing.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Publication records were retrieved from 2002 to 2020 for the ten urology journals with the highest impact factor. The names of all authors were gathered and gender was inferred using first names.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Trends in first and last/senior authorship by gender were evaluated overall, within journals, and by geographic region.

RESULTS

A total of 59,375 articles were analyzed, of which 94.1% had gender information for the first author and 94.2% had gender information for the last author. The percentage of overall female authors increased positively from 17.2% (95% highest density interval [HDI] 12.9-21.4%) in 2002 to 27.2% (HDI 21.7-33.6%; p < 0.01) in 2020. Overall female first authorship increased from 15.2% (95% HDI 11.0-19.5%) to 28.5% (95% HDI 21.8-35.6%; p < 0.01). There was also significant growth for female senior authors from 10.4% (95% HDI 7.6-13.5%) to 18.6% (95% HDI 13.6-23.8%; p < 0.01). Assessment of journal-specific changes revealed that Neurourology and Urodynamics (12.6%, 95% HDI 9.9-15.1%) and The Journal of Sexual Medicine (16.2%, 95% HDI 13.6-19.0%) had significantly higher growth in female authorship when compared to Journal of Endourology (7.2%, 95% HDI 5.5-8.7%) and Urologic Oncology (4.5%, 95% HDI 2.0-6.8%; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Although overall female authorship increased between 2002 and 2020, women remain underrepresented in urology authorship. The percentage of females in senior (last) author positions is less than the percentage of females in first author positions. Journal-specific differences can probably be attributed to gender-based differences in subspecialized fields.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this study, we characterized the underrepresentation of women as authors in urology journals and analyzed the change in female authorship for ten academic urology journals over the course of 18 years. Although the proportion of female authors has increased over that time, the percentage of females in senior authorship roles is less than the percentage of females in first author positions.

Factors that influence the implementation of organisational interventions for advancing women in healthcare leadership: A meta-ethnographic study

BACKGROUND

Gender inequity in healthcare leadership persists and progress is slow, with the focus firmly on problems, barriers and on requiring women themselves to adapt and compete in a system not designed for them. Women are individually burdened to advance their careers, with little effort given to addressing systemic barriers in the health sector. A recent systematic review prioritised organisational-level approaches and demonstrated effective interventions. In this meta-ethnographic study, we further this work by examining factors in implementation of organisational interventions for advancing women in leadership.

METHODS

The meta-ethnographic framework applied here follows the Noblit and Hare approach for synthesising findings and applying interpretive analysis to original research. We generated a new line-of-argument with insights for the healthcare sector. The protocol is registered (CRD42020162115) on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Three academic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SCOPUS) were searched systematically between 2000 and 2021. Studies were analysed if they included organisational-level interventions that sought to measurably advance women in leadership. Study characteristics were extracted using a standard template for intervention details. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool. Data synthesis was conducted across 19 criteria of the Meta-Ethnography Reporting Guide (eMERGe).

FINDINGS

Fifteen qualitative studies were included. Analysis revealed three meta-themes that are central to successful implementation of organisational interventions that advance women in healthcare leadership: (1) leadership commitment and accountability, influenced by internal and external organisational settings, salient for long term outcomes and for developing an inclusive leadership culture; (2) intervention fit with individuals with consideration given to personal beliefs, preferences, experiences, capabilities or life circumstances, including capacity for leadership roles in their broader life context; balanced against maintaining interventional fidelity, and (3) cultural climate and organisational readiness for change, addressing traditional, conservative and constrictive perspectives on gender and leadership in health, highlighting the facilitating role of male colleagues.

INTERPRETATION

This meta-ethnographic research extends past work by integrating empirical evidence from a systematic literature review of effective organisational level interventions, with the identification of pragmatic themes to generate, implement, evaluate and embed evidence-based organisational interventions to advance women in healthcare leadership. This work can inform initiatives and policymakers to generate and implement new knowledge to advance women in healthcare leadership.

FUNDING

Epworth Health and Monash University provided scholarships for MM. HT is funded by an NHMRC / MRFF Practitioner Fellowship, JB by an NHMRC fellowship and HS by a Monash Warwick University Professorship.

Organizations in science and medicine must hold each other accountable for discriminatory practices

Many organizations persist in working with others that engage in known, remediable structural discrimination. We name this practice interorganizational structural discrimination (ISD) and argue it is a pivotal contributor to inequities in science and medicine. We urge organizations to leverage their relationships and demand progress from collaborators.

Recognition Awards in Pathology Specialty Societies

OBJECTIVES

Recognition awards build physician reputation and facilitate career advancement. We hypothesize women physicians are underrepresented as award recipients by pathology medical societies compared with representation in the specialty.

METHODS

We analyzed publicly available online information about physician recipients (January 2015 to December 2021) from three general pathology society websites. Recipient gender was determined by pronoun use, first name, and photograph. Representation was compared with Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) specialty data from 2015 and 2019, which showed a minimum of 36.7% women pathologists in 2015 and up to 43.4% in 2019.

RESULTS

Twenty-six awards and 230 physician recipients were included in the analysis. A total of 159 (69.1%) men physicians and 71 (30.9%) women physicians received awards. Overall, women physicians were underrepresented in recognition awards compared with AAMC benchmarks. Prestigious awards (defined as those that recognize a person's body of work over time) showed a similar disparity with 22 (30.1%) of 73 recipients being women. Men physicians were more likely to receive multiple awards.

CONCLUSIONS

Women physicians are underrepresented overall for recognition awards by pathology medical societies. Disparities are greater for prestigious awards. Further research is needed to better understand the reasons for these findings and how they affect women physicians' careers.