Female representation among US National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline panel members

Examining representation of women in leadership of professional medical associations in India

Women constitute 70% of the global health workforce but are significantly underrepresented in leadership positions. In India, professional medical associations (PMAs) play a crucial role in shaping policy agenda in the health sector, but very little is known about gender diversity in their leadership. Therefore, we analysed the gender representation of current and past leaderships of Indian PMAs. Data of the current and past national leadership and leadership committees of 46 leading PMAs representing general, specialities, and super-specialities were extracted from their official websites. Gender composition of leadership was analysed using a sequential approach. For Indian Medical Association (IMA), the largest Indian PMA, an analysis of its 32 sub-chapters was also undertaken. The findings revealed that only 9 (19.5%) out of 46 associations are currently led by a woman. Leadership committees of half the associations have less than 20% women, while there were no women in the central committee of nine PMAs. Among past presidents, information was publicly available for 31 associations and all of them have had less than 20% of women presidents till date. Among the 64 individuals currently serving as presidents and secretaries of 32 sub-chapters of IMA, only three (4.6%) are women. Even in associations closely related to women's health, such as obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, and neonatology, unequal representation persists, highlighting male dominance. These results demonstrate significant gender disparities in PMA leadership in India, necessitating urgent efforts to promote gender equality. Gender-transformative leadership is crucial to develop gender-sensitive health care policies and practices which can serve as a catalyst for broader societal change.

The representation of women on Australian clinical practice guideline panels, 2010-2020

OBJECTIVES

To assess the composition by gender of Australian clinical practice guideline development panels; to explore guideline development-related factors that influence the composition of panels.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS

Survey of clinical guidelines published in Australia during 2010-2020 that observed the 2016 NHMRC Standards for Guidelines, identified (June 2021) in the NHMRC Clinical Practice Guideline Portal or by searching the Guideline International Network guidelines library, the Trip medical database, and PubMed. The gender of contributors to guideline development was inferred from gendered titles (guideline documents) or pronouns (online biographies).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The overall proportion of guideline panel members - the guideline contributors who formally considered evidence and formulated recommendations (ie, guideline panel chairs and members) - who were women.

RESULTS

Of 406 eligible guidelines, 335 listed the names of people who contributed to their development (82%). Of 7472 named contributors (including 511 guideline panel chairs [6.8%] and 5039 guideline panel members [67.4%]), 3514 were men (47.0%), 3345 were women (44.8%), and gender could not be determined for 612 (8.2%). A total of 215 guideline panel chairs were women (42.1%), 280 were men (54.8%); 2566 guideline panel members were men (50.9%), 2071 were women (41.1%). The proportion of female guideline panel members was smaller than 40% for 179 guidelines (53%) and larger than 60% for 71 guidelines (21%). The median guideline proportion of female panel members was smaller than 50% for all but two years (2017, 2018).

CONCLUSIONS

The representation of women in health leadership roles in Australia does not reflect their level of participation in the health care workforce. In particular, clinical guideline development bodies should develop transparent policies for increasing the participation of women in guideline development panels.

Gender representation on editorial boards of leading oncology journals

Background

There has historically been women underrepresentation on editorial boards of peer-reviewed medical journals. High-ranked oncology journals showcase cancer-related scientific work at the forefront of the discipline. There is urgent need to investigate gender representation on editorial boards at leading oncology journals.

Materials and methods

Sixty high-ranked oncology journals based on impact factor calculated by the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2021 from Web of Science/Clarivate Analytics were identified. Gender-related information of editorial boards was obtained from each journal’s website. The gender of each member of the editorial team was confirmed by an internet search for picture and/or gender-specific pronoun from journal or personal profile. Fisher’s exact tests and analysis of variance were used to analyze categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Significance was set at P < 0.05.

Results

Among 4898 members on editorial boards of top oncology journals with the highest impact factor, 1177 were women. Women made up 24% (1177 of 4898) of members on editorial boards in top oncology journals, and there was significantly less women board members than men (P < 0.0001). The mean female composition of editorial boards of oncology journals was 27% (range from 4% to 100%). Among 71 editors-in-chief of the top oncology journals, 14 (20%) were women. There was a positive correlation between the presence of women in journal editorial leadership and the percentage of women on editorial boards (r_s = 0.340, P = 0.008). The underrepresentation of women on oncology journal editorial boards was significantly different among quartiles of journal impact factor. There was no significant correlation between women’s representation on journal editorial boards (%) and journal impact factors (r_s = 0.226, P = 0.086).

Conclusions

The results demonstrated that there are gender disparities among editorial leadership at high-impact oncology journals. There are cultural and structural barriers and prejudices to gender parity and diversity on editorial boards of oncology journals.

•

The representation of women on editorial boards of oncology journals has not been verified.

•

This large-scale study found that women comprised only 24% of editorial boards of top-ranked oncology journals.

•

The results demonstrated that there are gender disparities among editorial leadership at leading oncology journals.

Personal Payments from Pharmaceutical Companies to Authors of Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Oncologists who author clinical practice guidelines frequently have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. It is unknown whether participation on clinical practice guideline committees is associated with differences in the amounts of industry money received.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a nested case-control study from August 2013 to December 2018. We manually abstracted membership records of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines committees for the 20 most common cancers and linked to Open Payments. The study sample included medical oncologists selected to join an NCCN Guidelines committee ("joiners") during the study period. Joiners were matched 1:2 to medical oncologists who had no participation on NCCN committees (controls) by gender, NCCN institution, and medical school graduation year. We performed difference-in-differences (DiD) estimation to assess whether selection to an NCCN committee was associated with the dollar value of payments received from industry, using generalized estimating equations to address correlation between matched pairs and between repeated observations of the same pair.

RESULTS

During the study period, 54 physicians joined an NCCN Guidelines committee. These physicians received more payments than matched controls in the year prior to joining ($11,259 vs. $3,427; p = .02); this difference did not increase in the year after joining (DiD = $731; p = .45).

CONCLUSION

Medical oncologists selected to NCCN Guidelines committees had greater financial ties to industry than their peers. The potential influence of industry in oncology clinical practice guidelines may be reduced through the selection of committee members with fewer ties to industry.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Oncologists who author clinical practice guidelines frequently have financial conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. This creates concern about the potential for industry influence on guidelines. However, it is unknown whether oncologists who author guidelines have greater industry relationships than their peers. This study compared medical oncologists who were newly selected to join a National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines panel with medical oncologists at the same institutions and at similar career stages. At the time they joined, oncologists joining NCCN Guidelines panels had received more than three times the dollar value of industry payments than their peers. The potential for industry influence may be reduced by the selection of less-conflicted panel members.

Gender Representation in American Urological Association Guidelines

OBJECTIVE

To study patterns and factors associated with female representation in the American Urological Association (AUA) guidelines.

METHODS

We gathered publicly available information about the panelists, including the AUA section, practice setting, academic rank, fellowship training, years in practice, and H-index. The factors associated with the proportion of female panelists and trends were investigated. We also examined the proportion of female panelists in the European Association of Urology (EAU) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) urology guidelines.

RESULTS

There were 483 non-unique panelists in AUA guidelines, and 17% are female. Non-urologist female panelists in AUA guidelines represented a higher proportion than female urologists (30% vs 13%, P<0.0001). Compared with male panelists, females had lower H-indices (median 23 vs 35, P<0.001), and fewer were fellowship-trained (77.2% vs 86.8%; P=0.042). On multivariate analysis, non-urologists and panelists with lower H-indices were more likely to be female but there was no association between guideline specialties, academic ranking, geographic section, years in practice, and fellowship training with increased female authorship. Overtime, the proportion of female participation in guidelines remained stable. In the EAU and NCCN guideline panels, 12.2% and 10.7% were female, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Female representation among major urologic guidelines members is low and unchanged overtime. Female urologist participation was proportional to their representation in the urology workforce. Being a non-urologist and lower H-indices were associated with female membership in guideline panels.

Trends in Female Representation on NCCN Guideline Panels

BACKGROUND

NCCN produces highly influential disease-specific oncology clinical practice guidelines. Because the number of women in academic oncology has increased, we assessed whether the composition of NCCN Guidelines Panels reflected this trend.

METHODS

Using historical guidelines requested from NCCN, we investigated time trends for female representation on 21 NCCN Guidelines Panels and analyzed the trends for female-predominant cancers (breast, ovarian, uterine, and cervical) compared with all cancers.

RESULTS

From 2013 to 2019, there was an increase from 123 women of 541 total panelists (22.7%) to 175 women of 542 panelists (32.3%). Within the 4 female-predominant cancers, the increase was more rapid: from 30 of 101 total panelists (29.7%) to 66 of 118 panelists (56.4%). Excluding female-predominant cancers, increases were minimal.

CONCLUSIONS

There could be multiple explanations for these differing trends, including the possibility of more rapid increases in the underlying pool of female physician-scientists in female-predominant specialties or more efforts to increase the representation of women in decisions about the standard of care in cancers predominantly affecting women.

From presentation to paper: Gender disparities in oncological research

Gender disparities in scientific publications have been identified in oncological research. Oral research presentations at major conferences enhance visibility of presenters. The share of women presenting at such podia is unknown. We aim to identify gender-based differences in contributions to presentations at two major oncological conferences. Abstracts presented at plenary sessions of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meetings and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congresses were collected. Trend analyses were used to analyze female contribution over time. The association between presenter's sex, study outcome (positive/negative) and journals' impact factors (IFs) of subsequently published papers was assessed using Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests. Of 166 consecutive abstracts presented at ASCO in 2011-2018 (n = 34) and ESMO in 2008-2018 (n = 132), 21% had female presenters, all originating from Northern America (n = 17) or Europe (n = 18). The distribution of presenter's sex was similar over time (p = 0.70). Of 2,425 contributing authors to these presented abstracts, 28% were women. The proportion of female abstract authors increased over time (p < 0.05) and was higher in abstracts with female (34%) compared to male presenters (26%; p < 0.01). Presenter's sex was not associated with study outcome (p = 0.82). Median journals' IFs were lower in papers with a female first author (p < 0.05). In conclusion, there is a clear gender disparity in research presentations at two major oncological conferences, with 28% of authors and 21% of presenters of these studies being female. Lack of visibility of female presenters could impair acknowledgement for their research, opportunities in their academic career and even hamper heterogeneity in research.

Mind the gap: Gendered publication trends in oncology

BACKGROUND

Investigating scientific publication trends in the field of oncology may highlight opportunities for improved representation, mentorship, collaboration, and advancement for women.

METHODS

We conducted a bibliometric analysis of Annals of Surgical Oncology; Cancer; International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics (IJROBP); JAMA Oncology; and Journal of Clinical Oncology in 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2017. Full name and degree credentials per author role (ie, first or senior author), article type, publication year, and citation metrics were collected. First names were used to identify author gender.

RESULTS

Across 9189 articles, female representation rose between 1990 and 2017 (first authors: 17.7% in 1990, 36.6% in 2017; senior authors: 11.7% in 1990, 28.5% in 2017). For the 50 most cited articles per year, women comprised a smaller percent of first (26.5%) and senior (19.9%) authors. The average citation count was higher for male first (44.8 per article) and senior (47.1) authors compared to female first (39.7) and senior (44.1) authors. With male senior authors, the first author was more likely male (71.4% male; 25.0% female); with female senior authors, first authors were 50.2% male and 47.6% female. IJROBP had the lowest total female representation among first (25.1%) and senior (16.7%) authors. Women had more MDs with Masters degrees, whereas men held more MDs only and more MDs with PhDs.

CONCLUSION

Despite positive trends, substantial gendered differences in oncology publications persist. Fostering more women in oncology research will benefit female representation at many levels of academia and improve productivity, collaboration, and recruitment, especially in technical fields such as radiation and surgical oncology.

Women's Representation in Leadership Positions in Academic Medical Oncology, Radiation Oncology, and Surgical Oncology Programs

IMPORTANCE

Women are underrepresented in medical leadership positions; however, representation of women among academic oncology leadership is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate representation of women overall and in leadership positions in academic medical oncology (MO), radiation oncology (RO), and surgical oncology (SO) programs and to examine the association of women leadership with overall faculty representation of women per program.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this cross-sectional study, MO, RO, and SO training program websites were queried from October 2018 through June 2019. All faculty from 265 of 273 accredited MO, RO, and SO training programs (97.1%) were included.

EXPOSURE

Gender.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Observed proportions of women in leadership positions compared with the expected proportion of overall women faculty in MO, RO, and SO were assessed. Rates of representation of women across each MO, RO, and SO program's faculty based on the presence or absence of a woman in a leadership position were compared.

RESULTS

Of 6030 total faculty, only 2164 (35.9%) were women. Total representation of women among MO, RO, and SO faculty was 37.1% (1563 of 4215), 30.7% (389 of 1269), and 38.8% (212 of 546), respectively. Women composed only 21.7% (30 of 138), 11.7% (11 of 94), and 3.8% (1 of 26) of MO, RO, and SO chair positions, respectively. The observed proportion of women in chair positions was significantly lower than the expected proportion for MO, RO, and SO. In all, 47.9%, 33%, and 18.5% of MO, RO, and SO programs, respectively, had at least 1 woman in a leadership position (program director or chair). Programs with 1 or more women in a leadership position were associated with a higher mean (SD) percentage of women faculty than those without at least 1 woman leader in MO (40.7% [12.5%] vs 33.1% [11.0%]; P < .001) and RO (36.2% [13.3%] vs 23.4% [12.3%]; P < .001) but not SO (40.2% [15.4%] vs 31.4% [16.9%]; P = .29).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Gender disparity exists in academic MO, RO, and SO faculty, which is magnified at the chair level. Programs in MO and RO with a woman physician in a leadership position were associated with a higher percentage of women faculty, but this was not true for SO. These data will serve as a benchmark to monitor progress toward a more balanced workforce.