Do Gender Disparities Among Major Radiological Society Award Recipients Exist?

The Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Academic Research Gender Disparities in Radiology

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Gender disparities have long existed in radiology. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted research activities worldwide and have impacted gender disparities across medical specialties. This study investigates the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on gender disparities in radiology academic authorship.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted using data from 110 843 global and 23 977 US radiology articles. The gender of authors was determined using an automated gender inference tool. Descriptive statistics were applied to explore authorship changes overall globally, in the US as well as across countries and states.

RESULTS

Female first-authorship increased globally from 16.9% to 17.6% (p < 0.001), and in the US, from 19.0% to 19.6% (p = 0.19) in the peri-COVID period. The combined female percentage increased from 19.7% to 20.0% globally (p = 0.021), and from 20.2% to 21.1% in the US (p = 0.006). Country-level analysis revealed significant increases in female authorship in Colombia, Denmark, Egypt, France, India, and Japan, while New Zealand demonstrated a decrease in female authorship. In the US, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, and Ohio experienced increases in female authorship, whereas South Carolina demonstrated a decrease in female authorship.

CONCLUSION

In contrast with other medical fields, the study demonstrates that radiology experienced a slight increase in female authorship in radiology research globally and in the US during the COVID period. While the pandemic may have influenced these findings, further research is needed to establish regional causal relationships and identify best practices for promoting gender equity in radiology research.

Gender distribution of North American professional radiology society award recipients

PURPOSE

Women remain underrepresented in radiology and there is a paucity of literature examining the recognition of their professional contributions to the discipline. The purpose of this study was to examine the gender distribution of award winners across all North American radiology societies.

METHODS

The gender distribution of 1923 award recipients from 21 North American radiology societies between 1960 and 2021 was examined. Awards were divided into four categories: leadership, teaching, contribution to radiology, and promising new/young societal member. Primary outcome was the total proportion of awards received by gender. All data was compared to the gender distribution of working radiologists in North America.

RESULTS

A total of 1923 award recipients were identified between 1960 and 2021. Seventy-nine percent of award recipients were men (n = 1527) and 21 % were women (n = 396). As of 1970, the proportion of women award recipients increased 0.55 % ± 0.07 % each year. The proportion of women receiving radiological awards after 2018 is equal to or surpassing the percentage of women radiologists. Women received 36.4 % of leadership, 33.6 % of promising new member, 30.1 % of teaching, and 14.4 % of lifetime contribution awards.

CONCLUSIONS

In the last five years, the proportion of women receiving awards was equal to or greater than the proportion of women radiologists. Women received more leadership awards and fewer lifetime contributor awards compared to men.

Gender Differences in Academic Rank, Leadership, and Awards Among NIH Grant Recipients in Diagnostic Radiology

Objective: Females have been traditionally underrepresented in academia across multiple medical specialties, including radiology. The present study investigated primary investigators (PIs) who received National Institutes of Health (NIH) radiology funding between 2016 and 2019 to establish if there was a correlation between NIH grants, gender, academic rank, first and second tier leadership positions, geographic location, and professional awards. Materials and Methods: Funding information was obtained from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditure and Results (RePORTER) website for 2016-2019. Information for each PI was obtained from academic institutional websites, LinkedIn, and Doximity. Mann-Whitney U tests and chi-square analyses were performed to compare and determine associations between gender and the stated variables of interest. Results: Of the 805 radiology PIs included in this study, 78% were male. There was a significant association of gender with the attainment of the highest academic rank (p = 0.026), with females occupied more of the assistant professor ranks (M:F = 1:1.5) and less of the professor ranks (F:M = 1:1.2). Between genders, there was no significant difference in first and second tier leadership positions (p = 0.497, p = 0.116), and postgraduate honors and awards (p = 0.149). The greatest proportion of grants was awarded in the setting of sole male PIs (55%) and the least proportion of grants were awarded when the contact PI and other project leader were female (1%). Conclusion: Despite having similar academic credentials, including number of leadership positions and postgraduate honors and awards, female radiology PIs who have received NIH grants continue to be underrepresented in higher academic ranks.

Gender Disparities in Academic Radiology Authorship: A 13-Year Review

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Underrepresentation of women in many scientific fields has been linked to biases against female-authored publications in peer-reviewed journals, thereby reducing their opportunities for career development and promotions. The objective of this study is to determine the representation of female academic radiologists in four flagship general radiology journals to elucidate gender-specific trends and disparities in academic radiology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed 23,741 peer-reviewed articles published in Radiology, American Journal of Roentgenology, Journal of the American College of Radiology and Academic Radiology from 2007 to 2020. Data abstraction and statistical analysis were performed for author gender, first and last authorship, research funding, and number of citations and grants. Baseline demographics data of academic radiologists was obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).

RESULTS

A total of 72.4% of authors were male with 54% of articles were written by a male first author and male last author. When compared with assumed random pairing, there were significantly fewer Male/Female author combinations and more Female/Female author combinations than expected (p<0.01). Over the 13-year time period, the rate of increase in the number of female authors exceeded the rate of increase in women in academic radiology as reported by the AAMC. Female last authors received on average 3.2 less citations than their male counterparts (p=.03). Of manuscripts with last female authors, 31.7% of female last authors were funded compared to 25.9% of last male authors.

CONCLUSION

This study showed the increasing numbers and higher productivity of female authors in academic radiology, suggesting progress is being made in overcoming gender disparities.

Gender and research productivity of award recipients among Canadian national ophthalmology and affiliate subspecialty societies

BACKGROUND

Although women remain historically underrepresented in medical achievement awards, gender distribution of award recipients in ophthalmology in Canada remain to be explored based on research productivity metrics.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the gender distribution of award recipients among the main Canadian national ophthalmological societies and subspecialty affiliates based on research productivity, graduate degrees, affiliated institution, and award type.

DESIGN

Retrospective, observational study.

METHODS

Award recipients were selected from the Canadian Ophthalmological Society (COS), Canadian Association of Paediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (CAPOS); Canadian Cornea, External Disease, and Refractive Surgery Society (CCEDRSS); Canadian Council of Ophthalmology Residents (CCOR) Research Proposal Award; and Canadian Glaucoma Society (CGS). The recipients' gender was determined by web search for the gender-specific pronoun, profile photograph check, or using Gender-API. Outcomes included gender distribution of recipients per award, society, year, and training level and differences in research productivity.

RESULTS

Thirteen special awards were given to 255 recipients (215 individuals) from 1995 to 2022. In total, 31% of recipients were women, the majority being from Canada. Women had a significantly lower median h-index (2.0 (0-62) women versus 4.0 (0-81) men, p = 0.001) and number of published documents (3.0 (0-213) women versus 8.0 (0-447) men, p < 0.001). On stratified analyses by type of award (research or lifetime achievement) and level of training (trainee or ophthalmologist), significant differences were found for mean h-index and number of publications for awardees within the research category (p = 0.01 and p = 0.02, respectively) and trainee level (p = 0.01 and p = 0.02, respectively). Overall, women's proportion rates in awards did not reach parity in 27 out of the 28 years analyzed.

CONCLUSION

Women were confirmed to be historically minored in proportion among the prominent society awards in Canada, with attested research disparity possibly explaining some of this bias. These findings require further confirmation in larger cohorts accounting for additional educational, institutional, and provincial factors.

REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

Gender Differences Among Academic Radiation Oncology National Institutes of Health (NIH) Funding Recipients

Purpose

The purpose of our study was to evaluate National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding recipients between 2016 and 2019 to determine if there was an association between gender, research productivity, academic rank, leadership positions, and post-graduate awards.

Materials and Methods

The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditure and Results (RePORTER) website was used to retrieve data for grants in Radiation Oncology from 2016-2019. Demographics and profiles of awardees were retrieved from institutional websites, LinkedIn, and Doximity. Publication metrics were collected through the Scopus database. Mann-Whitney U tests and chi-square analyses were performed to compare and determine associations between gender and other variables. 

Results

Three hundred and forty radiation oncology principal investigators (PIs) were included in this study, of whom 76% were men. Of the 776 total NIH grants awarded, 62% of the grants had a sole male PI and 1% had two or more PIs in which the contact PI and co-PI were women. Between the genders of PIs in this sample, there was no significant difference in highest academic rank, leadership positions (i.e., chair, director, founder, president, and other), and post-graduate honors and awards. Total publications, years of active research, h-index, and m-index were higher amongst men in the professor category but were largely similar between genders in the associate and assistant professor categories.

Conclusions

The results demonstrate that most NIH grants in radiation oncology were awarded to men. Strategies that increase women in radiation oncology (RO), as well as those that increase NIH grants amongst women may also increase the prevalence of women in senior academic ranks and leadership positions.

Gender Equity in Membership, Leadership, and Award Recognition in the Wilderness Medical Society

INTRODUCTION

Despite near gender parity for women entering medical careers, women remain underrepresented in medical societies. This study evaluated the gender distribution associated with Wilderness Medical Society (WMS) activities.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on the gender breakdown of the following WMS members: a single-day 2020 snapshot, conference attendees 2012 through 2020, conference presenters from winter 2017 through winter 2021, and leadership and awards data from 1984 through 2021. Genderize.io was used to generate probability-based gender categorizations (male/female) based on first names or pronoun associations.

RESULTS

Gender was assigned in 91% (4043/4461) of 2020 WMS members, 92% (6179/6720) of 2012-2020 conference attendees, and 100% of remaining categories. Women represented 28% (1143/4043) of members, 27% (1679/6179) of conference attendees, 31% (143/465) of all conference presenters, 20% (62/303) of mainstage presenters, 23% (17/75) of all board members, 38% (14/37) of committee chairs, and 10% (2/20) of board presidents. Women received 18% (42/228) of recognition awards and 31% (15/48) of research grants issued.

CONCLUSIONS

Although women comprise a minority of WMS participants, gender distribution was similar across categories for membership, conference presenters, total board positions, and research grant awards. Relative underrepresentation was seen in the highest leadership levels, in recognition awards, and in mainstage presenters. Ongoing auditing may help to identify and address sources of bias and/or barriers to participation. Although it is only one of many components of equity, identifying successes and future opportunities for gender balance can strengthen the base of the WMS, promote growth, and ensure a strong leadership pipeline.

Academic Radiology in the United States: Defining Gender Disparities in Faculty Leadership and Academic Rank

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Female physicians in academic medicine have faced barriers that potentially affect representation in different fields and delay promotion. Little is known about gender representation differences in United States academic radiology departments, particularly within the most pursued subspecialties.

PURPOSE

To determine whether gender differences exist in United States academic radiology departments across seven subspecialties with respect to academic ranks, departmental leadership positions, experience, and scholarly metrics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this cross-sectional study from November 2018 to June 2020, a database of United States academic radiologists at 129 academic departments in seven subspecialties was created. Each radiologist's academic rank, departmental leadership position (executive-level - Chair, Director, Chief, and Department or Division Head vs vice-level - vice, assistant, or associate positions of executive level), self-identified gender, years in practice, and measures of scholarly productivity (number of publications, citations, and h-index) were compiled from institutional websites, Doximity, LinkedIn, Scopus, and official NPI profiles. The primary outcome, gender composition differences in these cohorts, was analyzed using Chi² while continuous data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test. The adjusted gender difference for all factors was determined using a multivariate logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Overall, 5086 academic radiologists (34.7% women) with a median 14 years of practice (YOP) were identified and indexed. There were 919 full professors (26.1% women, p < 0.01) and 1055 executive-level leadership faculty (30.6% women, p < 0.01). Within all subspecialties except breast imaging, women were in the minority (35.4% abdominal, 79.1% breast, 12.1% interventional, 27.5% musculoskeletal, 22.8% neuroradiology, 45.1% pediatric, and 19.5% nuclear; p < 0.01). Relative to subspecialty gender composition, women full professors were underrepresented in abdominal, pediatric, and nuclear radiology (p < 0.05) and women in any executive-level leadership were underrepresented in abdominal and nuclear radiology (p < 0.05). However, after adjusting for h-index and YOP, gender did not influence rates of professorship or executive leadership. The strongest single predictors for professorship or executive leadership were h-index and YOP.

CONCLUSION

Women academic radiologists in the United States are underrepresented among senior faculty members despite having similar levels of experience as men. Gender disparities regarding the expected number of women senior faculty members relative to individual subspecialty gender composition were more pronounced in abdominal and nuclear radiology, and less pronounced in breast and neuroradiology. Overall, h-index and YOP were the strongest predictors for full-professorship and executive leadership among faculty.

KEY RESULTS

● Though women comprise 34.7% of all academic radiologists, women are underrepresented among senior faculty members (26.1% of full professors and 30.6% of executive leadership) ● Women in junior faculty positions had higher median years of practice than their male counterparts (10 vs 8 for assistant professors, 21 vs 13 for vice leadership) ● Years of practice and h-index were the strongest predictors for full professorship and executive leadership.

Assessment of Gender Parity: Leadership Representation in Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine

Background: Academic centers' and professional societies' top leadership representation and professional societies' award recipients remain disparate by gender in many fields. Little is known regarding leadership representation and recognition within pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine (PCCM), which has ∼22% women physicians. We sought to understand the landscape of female PCCM leaders. Methods: We abstracted gender of fellowship program directors (PDs), Department of Medicine (DOM) Chairs and Division Chiefs from academic medical centers with PCCM fellowship programs from 2018 and for comparison 2008. We abstracted leadership and recognition award recipients within four PCCM professional societies from 2013 to 2018 (American Thoracic Society [ATS], American Academy of Sleep Medicine [AASM], American College of Chest Physicians [CHEST], and Society of Critical Care Medicine [SCCM]). Results: In 2018, 29% of PCCM PD, 15% of PCCM Division Chiefs, and 15% of DOM Chairs were women. There were significantly more female PDs in 2018 (29%) compared with 2008 (16%, p = 0.04). On average, 25% of society presidents were women, with 28% of PCCM societal awards going to women, with significant difference between societies (p = 0.04). Each society differed in average distribution of female board members over the 6-year period: ATS 38%, AASM 35%, CHEST 18%, and SCCM 44% (p < 0.001). Conclusion: PCCM leadership and societal recognition are disparate by gender with few women holding top leadership roles and receiving societal recognition. Fortunately, the distribution notably is starting to reflect the specialty's demographics. Understanding why these inequalities exist will be essential to achieving gender parity in PCCM.

Current State of Bibliometric Research on the Scholarly Activity of Academic Radiologists

In this review article, we discuss the literature pertaining to the bibliometric analysis of academic radiologists' scholarly activity in order to identify current trends, knowledge gaps, and potential future directions. Current research provides cross-sectional analyses of bibliometrics on three main themes: academic ranking, gender disparity, and research funding. The most commonly used parameters are the publication and the citation counts, the h-index and the number of years in academia. The h-index correlates positively with academic ranking and, in the case of editorial board members, with the journal's impact factor. Scholars who have secured National Institutes of Health funding tend to have higher h-indexes than those who have not. Whereas gender balance has been achieved in medical school and in several medical specialties, women remain significantly fewer than men in most areas of radiology. The underrepresentation of women is particularly noticeable at higher academic ranks and in leadership positions, suggesting that significant barriers to female radiologists' career advancement exist. Scholarly productivity of radiology residents and the impact of research on academic productivity are subjects that have received less attention in the published literature. Future studies should focus on whether bibliometric parameters can be used as reliable measurements of scholarly activity to help determine appointments, promotions and grant allocations, and to assess interventions that promote gender parity.

Gender of Award Recipients in Major Ophthalmology Societies

PURPOSE

To assess the gender distribution of major ophthalmology society award recipients DESIGN: Retrospective, observational study METHODS: The study population included award recipients from 9 ophthalmologic societies: American Academy of Ophthalmology, American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, American Glaucoma Society, American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS), American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, American Society of Retina Specialists, American Uveitis Society, Cornea Society, and North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society. A gender-specific pronoun and a photograph of each award recipient were extracted from professional websites to assign their gender. Main outcome measures were gender distribution by award society, year (1970-2020), type (lectureship or not), category (achievement, education, research contribution, research item, international member achievement, public service-global health, service to society), and training level.

RESULTS

Out of 2,150 recipients for 78 awards, 1,606 (74.7%) were men and 544 (25.3%) were women. The proportion of women recipients increased from 0% in 1970 to 33.2% in 2020 (P < .001). Women representation varied within each society (P < .01), with ASCRS having the highest percentage (40.8%). Women received 11.0% of awards accompanied by a lecture. Women received a significantly greater proportion of research-related awards than achievement or service awards. Awards for trainees and early-career ophthalmologists had a greater proportion of women (39.8%) than the rest of the awards (21.5%) (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, women received awards (25.3%) at a higher rate than the average 1970-2020 American gender distributions of ophthalmologists. However, women are still under-represented in many award categories and subspecialties.

National Awards and Female Emergency Physicians in the United States: Is the "Recognition Gap" Closing?

BACKGROUND

Gender inequities in recognition, compensation, promotion, and leadership roles exist in emergency medicine. Formal recognition in the workplace and opportunities for advancement are vulnerable to bias.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the gender distribution of national awards in emergency medicine, to analyze whether there is a gap, and to highlight notable trends.

METHODS

Recipients of the major award categories between 2001 and 2020 were examined for the 3 main national emergency medicine organizations. The gender distribution of award winners by year was compared with the gender distribution of female faculty in emergency medicine departments using data from the Association of American Medical Colleges and a chi-squared analysis.

RESULTS

The gender gap in award winners has decreased over time, but men are still disproportionately given national awards over women. In all 3 organizations, women represented a smaller proportion of award winners than men when compared with the national proportion of women in academic emergency medicine. Advocacy awards were the one category where women were more likely to be recognized. Women were notably least likely to receive clinical and leadership awards.

CONCLUSIONS

The gender gap in emergency medicine awards has narrowed in the last 20 years but still exists. This discrepancy is an example of how bias can compound over time to generate gaps in recognition, career advancement, and promotion. The pipeline to award nominations should be addressed at the individual, departmental, awards committee, and organizational levels. © 2021 Elsevier Inc.