How to Foster Academic Promotion and Career Advancement of Women in Gastroenterology

Gender disparity between first and senior authors on liver cancer research in the top journals of Gastroenterology and Hepatology

BACKGROUND

Gender disparity is pervasive in academic medicine. This study aimed to assess the disparity between men and women with regard to first and senior author positions in primary studies on liver cancer over the last two decades.

METHODS

We conducted a review of articles published in high-impact factor journals of the field of Gastroenterology and Hepatology in 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020. First and senior authors of all ages were considered as the study population. The authors' genders were determined using the online artificial intelligence tool genderize.io (https://genderize.io/). The disparity between men and women authors was assessed using the linear-by-linear association test.

RESULTS

665 original articles from 10 journals were reviewed. The point prevalence of first women authors was 25.0% compared with 75.0% for men. The point prevalence of senior women authors was 16.3% compared with 83.7% for men. From 2000 to 2020, the proportion of first women authors increased 14.4% to 26.8% compared with 85.6%-73.2% for men (P = 0.009), and the proportion of senior women authors increased from 7.4% to 19.5%, compared with 92.6%-80.5% for men (P = 0.035). The factor independently associated with a reduced representation of women among first authors was the region of author. The factor independently associated with a reduced representation of women among senior authors was the impact factor of journals.

CONCLUSION

The findings indicated a remarkable increase in the proportion of women, both first and senior authors, over the past two decades in the field of liver cancers. However, the representation of women authors in this area is far less than that of men.

Association of Women Leaders with Women Program Director and Trainee Representation Across US Academic Internal Medicine

BACKGROUND

Women are underrepresented within internal medicine (IM). Whether women leaders attract women trainees is not well explored.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize leader and trainee gender across US academic IM and to investigate the association of leader gender with trainee gender.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

PARTICIPANTS

Leaders (chairs, chiefs, program directors (PDs)) in 2018 and trainees (residents, fellows) in 2012-2016 at medical school-affiliated IM and seven IM fellowship programs.

EXPOSURE

Leadership (chair/chief and program director; and, for resident analyses, fellow) gender.

MAIN MEASURES

Our primary outcome was percent women trainees (IM residents and, separately, subspecialty fellows). We used standard statistics to describe leadership and trainee gender. We created separate multivariable linear regressions to evaluate associations of leader gender and percent women fellows with percent women IM residents. We then created separate multivariable multilevel models (site as a random effect) to evaluate associations of leader gender with percent women subspecialty fellows.

KEY RESULTS

Our cohort consisted of 940 programs. Women were 13.4% of IM chairs and <25% of chiefs in each fellowship subspecialty (cardiology: 2.6%; gastroenterology: 6.6%; pulmonary and critical care: 10.7%; nephrology: 14.4%; endocrinology: 20.6%; hematology-oncology: 23.2%; infectious diseases: 24.3%). IM PDs were 39.7% women; fellowship PDs ranged from nearly 25% (cardiology and gastroenterology) to nearly 50% (endocrinology and infectious disease) women. Having more women fellows (but not chairs or PDs) was associated with having more women residents (0.3% (95% CI: 0.2-0.5%) increase per 1% fellow increase, p<0.001); this association remained after adjustment (0.3% (0.1%, 0.4%), p=0.001). In unadjusted analyses, having a woman PD (increase of 7.7% (4.7%, 10.6%), p<0.001) or chief (increase of 8.9% (4.6%, 13.1%), p<0.001) was associated with an increase in women fellows; after adjustment, these associations were lost.

CONCLUSIONS

Women held a minority of leadership positions in academic IM. Having women leaders was not independently associated with having more women trainees.

Women in gastroenterology: the UK trainee experience

Introduction

Compared with other medical specialties, there are lower numbers of female trainees and lower rates of flexible working in gastroenterology. This study aims to examine the experience of male and female trainees to understand specialty demographics and the experience of training.

Methods

Gastroenterology training data were obtained from the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) trainee surveys from 2014, 2018 and 2020, and from the Royal College of Physicians Medical Workforce unit between 2011 and 2019. Data on endoscopy measures from 2011 to 2021 were obtained from the Joint Advisory Group (JAG) on gastrointestinal endoscopy, including the JAG Endoscopy training system and the National Endoscopy Database. Data were segregated and compared by gender.

Results

The percentage of female gastroenterology trainees remains at around 40%, largely unchanged over the previous decade. From the BSG trainee survey, 29.5% of women have flexible working patterns compared with 2.6% of men (p<0.001), which is lower than other medical specialties. Less than half of female trainees felt confident about their job prospects once they qualify. A greater proportion of male than female trainees achieved provisional colonoscopy certification during training (55% vs 45%, p=0.005) and female trainees took longer to certify than male trainees (63 months vs 56 months, p=0.004). The total length of training time from primary medical qualification to consultancy was the same for men and women.

Conclusion

Changes must be addressed from a national and institutional level to address equitable access to national training programmes and equality of outcome for male and female trainees.

Survey Finds Gender Disparities Impact Both Women Mentors and Mentees in Gastroenterology

INTRODUCTION

Gastroenterologists at all levels of practice benefit from formal mentoring. Much of the current literature on mentoring in gastroenterology is based on expert opinion rather than data. In this study, we aimed to identify gender-related barriers to successful mentoring relationships from the mentor and mentee perspectives.

METHODS

A voluntary, web-based survey was distributed to physicians at 20 academic institutions across the United States. Overall, 796 gastroenterology fellows and faculty received the survey link, with 334 physicians responding to the survey (42% response rate), of whom 299 (90%; 129 women and 170 men) completed mentorship questions and were included in analysis.

RESULTS

Responses of women and men were compared. Compared with men, more women preferred a mentor of the same gender (38.6% women vs 4.2% men, P < 0.0001) but less often had one (45.5% vs 70.2%, P < 0.0001). Women also reported having more difficulty finding a mentor (44.4% vs 16.0%, P < 0.0001) and more often cited inability to identify a mentor of the same gender as a contributing factor (12.8% vs 0.9%, P = 0.0004). More women mentors felt comfortable advising women mentees about work-life balance (88.3% vs 63.8%, P = 0.0005). Nonetheless, fewer women considered themselves effective mentors (33.3% vs 52.6%, P = 0.03). More women reported feeling pressured to mentor because of their gender (39.5% vs 0.9% of men, P < 0.0001). Despite no gender differences, one-third of respondents reported negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their ability to mentor and be mentored.

DISCUSSION

Inequities exist in the experiences of women mentees and mentors in gastroenterology, which may affect career advancement and job satisfaction.

Gender disparities in academic vascular surgeons

OBJECTIVE

Previous studies have identified significant gender discrepancies in grant funding, leadership positions, and publication impact in surgical subspecialties. We investigated whether these discrepancies were also present in academic vascular surgery.

METHODS

Academic websites from institutions with vascular surgery training programs were queried to identify academic faculty, and leadership positions were noted. H-index, number of citations, and total number of publications were obtained from Scopus and PubMed. Grant funding amounts and awards data were obtained from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Society for Vascular Surgery websites. Industry funding amount was obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website. Nonsurgical physicians and support staff were excluded from this analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 177 female faculty (18.6%) and 774 male faculty (81.4%). A total of 41 (23.2%) female surgeons held leadership positions within their institutions compared with 254 (32.9%) male surgeons (P = .009). Female surgeons held the rank of assistant professor 50.3% of the time in contrast to 33.9% of men (P < .001). The rank of associate professor was held at similar rates, 25.4% vs 20.7% (P = .187), respectively. Fewer women than men held the full professor rank, 10.7% compared with 26.2% (P < .001). Similarly, women held leadership positions less often than men, including division chief (6.8% vs 13.7%; P < .012) and vice chair of surgery (0% vs 2.2%; P < .047), but held more positions as vice dean of surgery (0.6% vs 0%; P < .037) and chief executive officer (0.6% vs 0%; P < .037). Scientific contributions based on the number of each surgeon's publications were found to be statistically different between men and women. Women had an average of 42.3 publications compared with 64.8 for men (P < .001). Female vascular surgeons were cited an average of 655.2 times, less than half the average citations of their male counterparts with 1387 citations (P < .001). The average H-index was 9.5 for female vascular surgeons compared with 13.7 for male vascular surgeons (P < .001). Correcting for years since initial board certification, women had a higher H-index per year in practice (1.32 vs 1.02; P = .005). Female vascular surgeons were more likely to have received NIH grants than their male colleagues (9.6% vs 4.0%; P = .017). Although substantial, the average value of NIH grants awarded was not statistically significant between men and women, with men on average receiving $915,590.74 ($199,119.00-$2,910,600.00) and women receiving $707,205.35 ($61,612.00-$4,857,220.00; P = .416). There was no difference in the distribution of Society for Vascular Surgery seed grants to women and men since 2007. Industry payments made publicly available according to the Sunshine Act for the year 2018 were also compared, and female vascular surgeons received an average of $2155.28 compared with their male counterparts, who received almost four times as much at $8452.43 (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although there is certainly improved representation of women in vascular surgery compared with several decades ago, a discrepancy still persists. Women tend to have more grants than men and receive less in industry payments, but they hold fewer leadership positions, do not publish as frequently, and are cited less than their male counterparts. Further investigation should be aimed at identifying the causes of gender disparity and systemic barriers to gender equity in academic vascular surgery.