Gender Equity in Leadership: SGIM, It's Our Problem!

Gender differences in COVID-19-related manuscript authorship by hospitalists during the pandemic: A bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

Hospital medicine (HM) has a well-described gender disparity related to academic work and promotion. During the COVID-19 pandemic, female authorship across medicine fell further behind historical averages.

OBJECTIVE

Examine how COVID-19 affected the publication gender gap for hospitalists.

DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS

Bibliometric analysis to determine gender and specialty of US-based physician first and last authors of COVID-19 articles published March 1, 2020 to February 28, 2021 in the four highest impact general medical journals and two highest impact HM-specific journals.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

We characterized the percentage of all physician authors that were women, the percentage of physician authors that were hospitalists, and the percentage of HM authors that were women. We compared author gender between general medical and HM-specific journals.

RESULTS

During the study period, 853 manuscripts with US-based first or last authors were published in eligible journals. Included manuscripts contained 1124 US-based physician first or last author credits, of which 34.2% (384) were women and 8.8% (99) were hospitalists. Among hospitalist author credits, 43.4% (n = 43/99) were occupied by women. The relative gender equity for hospitalist authors was driven by the two HM journals where, compared to the four general medical journals, hospitalist authors (54.1% [33/61] vs. 26.3% [10/38] women, respectively, p = .002) and hospitalist last authors (51.9% [14/27] vs. 20% [4/20], p = .03) were more likely to be women.

CONCLUSIONS

Across COVID-19-related manuscripts, disparities by gender were driven by the high-impact general medical journals. HM-specific journals had more equitable inclusion of women authors, demonstrating the potential impact of proactive editorial policies on diversity.

Gendered Expectations: the Impact of Gender, Evaluation Language, and Clinical Setting on Resident Trainee Assessment of Faculty Performance

BACKGROUND

Gender inequity is pervasive in academic medicine. Factors contributing to these gender disparities must be examined. A significant body of literature indicates men and women are assessed differently in teaching evaluations. However, limited data exist on how faculty gender affects resident evaluation of faculty performance based on the skill being assessed or the clinical practice settings in which the trainee-faculty interaction occurs.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate for gender-based differences in the assessment of general internal medicine (GIM) faculty physicians by trainees in inpatient and outpatient settings.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study SUBJECTS: Inpatient and outpatient GIM faculty physicians in an Internal Medicine residency training program from July 1, 2015, to December 31, 2018.

MAIN MEASURES

Faculty scores on trainee teaching evaluations including overall teaching ability and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) competencies (medical knowledge [MK], patient care [PC], professionalism [PROF], interpersonal and communication skills [ICS], practice-based learning and improvement [PBLI], and systems-based practice [SBP]) based on the institutional faculty assessment form.

KEY RESULTS

In total, 3581 evaluations by 445 trainees (55.1% men, 44.9% women) assessing 161 GIM faculty physicians (50.3% men, 49.7% women) were included. Male faculty were rated higher in overall teaching ability (male=4.69 vs. female=4.63, p=0.003) and in four of the six ACGME competencies (MK, PROF, PBLI, and SBP) based on our institutional evaluation form. In the inpatient setting, male faculty were rated more favorably for overall teaching (male = 4.70, female = 4.53, p=<0.001) and across all ACGME competencies. The only observed gender difference in the outpatient setting favored female faculty in PC (male = 4.65, female = 4.71, p=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Male and female GIM faculty performance was assessed differently by trainees. Gender-based differences were impacted by the setting of evaluation, with the greatest difference by gender noted in the inpatient setting.