Representation by Gender of Recognition Award Recipients from Gastroenterology and Hepatology Professional Societies

[Awards in pathology-a man's world?]

BACKGROUND

Awards provide their recipients with fame and recognition, and subsequently facilitate publications and acquisition of external funding through increased visibility. We hypothesize that despite increasing representation in pathology, women are underrepresented as awardees in the German Society of Pathology and consequently there is an associated imbalance between genders.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Published data from the German Society of Pathology on female awardees during the period from 2000 to 2022 were examined. Only awards specifically dedicated to the field of pathology were considered. In addition, the publicly available data of the German Medical Association on gender and age distribution of pathologists in Germany were considered as reference material.

RESULTS

A total of six different awards were included in the analysis. Among the 143 awardees across 150 individual awards in the period from 2000 to 2022, 55 (38.4%) of the awardees were female compared to an average percentage of 31% of women working in the field of pathology in the 23-year period under consideration. Consequently, female awardees in pathology were not underrepresented when compared to the national figures on the proportion of women in the field of pathology. However, the distribution of female awardees across individual awards suggests that women were increasingly represented in less prestigious research and doctoral awards, while men made up a large proportion of awardees of honorary awards (0% women) and prestigious awards (17% women).

Disparities in funding for Nobel Prize awards in medicine and physiology across nationalities, races, and gender

Since 1901, the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine has been awarded to numerous individuals for their outstanding contributions. This article presents a comprehensive analysis of the Nobel Prize recipients, focusing on gender, race, and nationality. We observe that an alarming disparity emerges when we examine the underrepresentation of Black scientists among Nobel laureates. Furthermore, trends in nationalities show how Americans make up the majority of Nobel Prize winners, while there is a noticeable lack of gender and racial minority winners of the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine. Together, this highlights the importance of diversity and inclusion in scientific achievement. We offer suggestions and techniques, including funding opportunities and expanding nominators, to improve the gender, racial, and geographical diversity of Nobel Prizes.

Gender Representation of Editors at Journals Affiliated with Major U.S. Medical Societies

Objectives: To assess the gender composition of upper-level specialty-specific editor positions among United States (U.S.) medical society-affiliated journals and to evaluate the equitable inclusion of women and women physicians. Materials and Methods: The gender composition of upper-level (e.g., editor-in-chief, deputy) specialty-specific editor positions among 39 U.S. medical society-affiliated journals as of January 5, 2023, was analyzed. Editor positions below the level of associate editor were excluded. Parity (50:50 representation) and equity (compared with the proportion of practicing physicians in each medical specialty) benchmarks were utilized to determine if women are underrepresented in editor positions. Results: A total of 862 editor positions among 39 journals were assessed. Women held 32.9% (284/862) of positions (95% confidence interval [CI]: 29.9%-36.2%), significantly less than expected based on the U.S. population (p < 0.001). Physicians comprised 90.8% (783/862) of positions, of whom 30.4% (238/783) were women physicians (95% CI: 27.3%-33.7%), significantly less than expected (p < 0.001). Thirty-three (84.6%, 95% CI: 70.3%-92.8%) journals were below parity for women overall, whereas 34 (87.2%, 95% CI: 73.3%-94.4%) were below parity for women physicians. Fourteen (35.9%, 95% CI: 22.7%-51.6%) journals were below equity for women physicians. Notably, 13 (33.3%, 95% CI: 20.6%-49.0%) journals were below both parity and equity for women overall and women physicians. Conclusions: This study reveals mixed results in the equitable inclusion of women in editor positions of journals affiliated with U.S. medical societies. Despite the equitable inclusion of women in editorial roles being a remediable issue, approximately one third of journals affiliated with major U.S. medical societies remain inequitable.

Award Recipients for Pediatric Gastroenterology: A Descriptive Analysis of Gender Distribution

Society awards are an important component of recognition in medicine and for career advancement such as promotion. Multiple studies conducted in pediatrics and gastroenterology have shown underrepresentation of women awardees even in fields with a higher proportion of women than men. To our knowledge, no such studies have been conducted in pediatric gastroenterology. We hypothesized that among all recipients, women would be underrepresented when compared to men and that women were more likely to be given teaching awards compared to other career achievement awards. We collected data on recipients of major recognition award presented by The North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition from 1987 to 2022. We found that 80.90% of the awards had been given to men and that most nominators were men. This study highlights inequities in women recipients for major awards and presents an opportunity for a call for action to examine and address the factors contributing to this gender inequity.

Inequity Analysis in Faculty Recognition Awards at a School of Medicine

As part of developmental networks, sponsors help provide recognition and visibility opportunities to their faculty protégés. Recognition awards given to the School of Medicine (SOM) faculty are an important mechanism for acknowledging what is valued in academic medicine. Beyond their impact on individual careers, awards help define the culture and climate of an organization. The literature suggests inequities in recognition awards for women and racial/ethnic underrepresented minority faculty. The study's purpose was to examine the characteristics of the awardees relative to the SOM faculty in a minority-serving institution in a minority-majority state. In this observational cross-sectional study, 47 SOM faculty were recognized between 2000-2023 as Regents' Lecturers (9), Regents' Professors (20), Community Engagement Awardees (5), and Gold-headed Cane Awardees (13). SOM sought nominations which a search committee competitively reviewed. Award recipients were characterized by their department, rank, academic track, degree, country of origin, sex, and race/ethnicity, and were compared to all SOM faculty. Male faculty were more likely than women faculty to receive an award (p=0.04). Faculty with tenure, Ph.D. degree, or Professor rank were more likely to receive an award than their counterparts (p<0.001, all analyses). Faculty in basic and diagnostic specialties were more likely to receive an award than medical or surgical specialties (p<0.001). Although rates of awards for racial/ethnic URM faculty were about half that of non-URM faculty, this difference did not reach statistical significance (p=0.14). In addition to demonstrating sex-related inequity in awards, recognized faculty are traditionally associated with the scholarship of discovery compared to other models of scholarship or clinical activity. Sponsors should promote women, physicians, and clinician educators for recognition awards to advance their academic careers. SOM leaders need to examine award criteria and processes to ensure recognition of the diversity of talents and achievements that are critical to the future of academic medicine.

Gender Disparities and Differences Among Urologists Included in Top Doctor Lists

OBJECTIVE

To understand gender trends among urologists included in "Top Doctor" lists as more women practice urology, we (1) Evaluated whether Top Doctor lists reflect a contemporary distribution of urologists by gender; (2) Describe regional differences in gender composition of lists; (3) Report similarities and differences among men and women Top Doctors.

METHODS

All urologists in regional Top Doctor Castle Connolly lists published in magazines between January 1, 2020 and June 22, 2021 were included. Physician attributes were abstracted. American Urological Association (AUA) census data was used to compare the number of men and women Top Doctor urologists to the number of practicing men and women urologists within each list's zip codes. Log odds ratios (OR) and (95% confidence intervals) were used to compare likelihood of list inclusion by gender overall and by region.

RESULTS

Four hundred and ninety-four Top Doctor urologists from 25 lists were analyzed, of which 42 (8.50%) were women. Women urologists comprised 0%-27.8% of each list, with 7 lists (28.0%) including zero women urologists. Using AUA census data, OR for list inclusion of men urologists compared to women was 1.31 (1.01, 1.70) overall, with OR = 0.78 (0.36, 1.72) in the West, OR = 1.39 (1.03, 1.89) South, OR = 1.46 (0.8, 2.67) Northeast, OR = 1.90 (0.50, 7.18) Midwest. Women top urologists completed fellowship more often than men (66.7%, 55.1%) and were significantly more likely to complete female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (FPMRS) fellowship (P <.001).

CONCLUSION

Men urologists were significantly more likely to be included in Top Doctor lists than women urologists. Top women urologists were significantly more likely to complete FPMRS fellowship.

Analysis of physician recipients of recognition awards from the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation by Race and Ethnicity

BACKGROUND

Medical society recognition awards are important resources for physicians in advancing their careers. There is a need to better understand the representation of physician recipients by race and ethnicity, especially in women with intersectional identities.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the proportions of American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) award recipients by race and ethnicity and the intersection of gender.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional and retrospective study.

SETTING AND METHODS

One hundred seven (n = 107) published online physician award recipients from 2011 to 2020 were categorized by race, ethnicity, and gender by two independent researchers. There was 100% interrater agreement on race and gender and 95% on ethnicity. Data were analyzed with descriptive analysis and multilinear regression.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Awards given to physicians coded by race (White/Caucasian, Asian, and Black/African American), ethnicity (Hispanic/Latino), and the intersection of gender with race and ethnicity were analyzed. The primary comparator was proportions by race, ethnicity, and gender of academic physicians in physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) using Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) data. A secondary aim was recipients' proportions compared to AAMC benchmarks for all practicing physiatrists.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in representation of award recipients by race or ethnicity compared to the primary comparator of their percentages in academic PM&R. Notably, 96.3% of awards were given to physicians identified as being in or having been in academic medicine. Secondary analysis of award recipients to all practicing physiatrists revealed significant underrepresentation of recipients who were coded as (1) White/Caucasian women, Asian men and women, Black/African American men and women (p = .016), and (2) Hispanic/Latino men and women (p = .028).

CONCLUSIONS

This is a novel study assessing race and ethnicity in physician recognition awards presented by a medical society. No significant disparities were found among recipients as compared to representation in academic PM&R. However, there were significant disparities when compared to all practicing physiatrists. These findings deserve further investigation and consideration as medical societies strive to equitably support all members.

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 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.

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.

Implementation of a Family Support Grant to Subsidize Caregiving Needs and Support Attendance at American Society for Nutrition's Annual Professional Scientific Conference

Attendance at professional society meetings facilitates networking, collaboration, and success in academic/scientific fields. Insufficient funds, support, or resources for caregiving can inhibit attendance for parents/caretakers, who may become professionally disadvantaged by not attending professional society conferences. The American Society for Nutrition (ASN) offered a family support grant for caregiving needs during the annual conference (maximum: $750); however, the perceived impact of caregiving funds on attendance outcomes is unknown. The objective of this study was to assess the need of family support for attendance to the ASN annual conference among applicants and to assess recipients' experience and usage of funds. Applicants completed a pre-conference survey assessing requested funds, out-of-pocket caregiving expenses to attend the meeting, the influence of receiving the grant on attendance, and additional factors. Recipients completed a post-conference survey assessing use of the funds and impact of the grant on attending/participating. Grant applications (n = 110) were majority women, aged 26-45 y, married, at the trainee or assistant professor level, from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds, and with parenting noted as the primary responsibility. Thirty-seven percent of applicants were currently lactating or expressing milk. The average amount requested was $650 US dollars, and >60% of respondents indicated plans to use funds to bring a family member/friend to the conference. Seventy-seven percent of respondents indicated that receiving the grant would influence their attendance. The post-conference survey (n = 25) indicated that recipients felt that receiving the grant was helpful in attending the conference (92%), specifically attending scientific sessions (96%) and poster sessions (80%). Recipients indicated the grant helped them network with attendees (88%), visit the exhibitor hall (72%), and participate in career development activities (64%). The ASN family support grant aided attendance and supported recipients' participation in conference activities, particularly early-career women who are parents, with the goal of supporting diversity and inclusivity in scientific/academic fields. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03432585.