Gender Disparity in 2013-2018 Industry Payments to Plastic Surgeons

A Work in Progress: Women's Status in the Plastic Surgery Workforce and Recommendations for Success

BACKGROUND

Only 20% of the current plastic surgery workforce is female, but since 2022, most matched applicants in integrated plastic surgery programs have been women. This study aimed to examine current practice models among female plastic surgeons, including those outside of academia, as the field continues to evolve.

OBJECTIVES

This study surveyed female plastic surgeons in different practice models to elicit perspectives, career path advice, characterize/project trends, and provide recommendations for success.

METHODS

A 37-question survey focusing on demographics, practice models, career paths, desire for practice changes and advice for women trainees was emailed to 1342 members of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and The Aesthetic Society. Chi square analyses compared practice type characteristics (academia, employed roles, private practice), at a significance level of 0.05.

RESULTS

Response rate was 53%. Most respondents were age 35-45, in solo practice, trained via traditional pathways, without fellowships, and lacked female mentors. Private practice surgeons were very satisfied in their career, employed surgeons were moderately satisfied and academic surgeons were mildly satisfied. Academic surgeons reported a higher number of working hours (>60) and cases per month (20-30) than employed or private practice surgeons. Recommendations for success included seeking female mentorship, enhancing business skills and building a social media platform during training.

CONCLUSIONS

Results highlight the importance of female mentorship, acquiring business skills, and indicate private practice leads to greater career satisfaction. Training programs should consider accounting for these factors to better promote women's success and improve equity in academic practice.

Social Media Influence and Gender Are Correlated with Industry Payments to Orthopaedic Sports Surgeons

Social media, specifically Twitter, has become an increasingly used tool in academic orthopaedic surgery to help surgeons connect with patients and peers. This study seeks to understand correlations among social medial influence, academic influence, and gender among academic orthopaedic sport surgeons. A list of all orthopaedic sports surgeons serving as faculty of sports fellowships in the United States was compiled, along with publicly available demographic information. Their Hirsh indices (h-indices) were obtained using the Scopus database. The Physician Payments Sunshine Act Web site was used to determine their industry payments from 2014 through 2020. The number of Twitter followers was used as a measure of social media influence. Multivariable linear regression models were employed to explore the associations between these parameters and industry payments. Of the 633 surgeons, 33% had a Twitter account. Surgeons with > 1,000 followers (7.3%) were awarded 186% more in nonresearch funding (p = 0.01) and had a higher probability of receiving industry research funding compared with those with no followers (p = 0.03). Sports surgeons had an average h-index of 16, with 44% having ≤ 20 publications and 21% having ≥ 100 publications. Surgeons with ≥ 100 publications were awarded 453% more in nonresearch funding (p = 0.001) and had a 32% higher probability of receiving industry research funding (p < 0.001) when compared with their colleagues with ≤ 20 publications. Female sports surgeons accounted for only 7.9% of surgeons included in the study, and were awarded 65% less in industry nonresearch funding compared with their male colleagues (p = 0.004) when controlling for other factors. Both number of publications and a high level of Twitter activity (> 1,000 followers) had the strongest associations with the quantity of industry nonresearch funding and the highest probability of industry research funding. Female sports surgeons received significantly less industry nonresearch funding compared with their male colleagues. Future studies further exploring gender disparities in industry funding for orthopaedic surgeons may be warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:  Prognostic, Level III.

Financial Relationships in General Surgery Education: Recent Trends in Industry Payments to General Surgery Residency Leadership

INTRODUCTION

Residency programs and their directors frequently receive funding from industry payers. Both general surgery residency program directors (PDs) and assistant program directors (APDs) receive industry funding for various reasons, including educational advancement. This study investigates recent trends in industry payments to both PDs and APDs to better understand the financial relationships among leaders in residency education.

METHODS

We compared industry payments to general surgery residency PDs and APDs from 2019 to 2021 utilizing the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) open payments database. In addition, secondary analyses were performed among PDs to assess differences based on gender, practicing surgical specialty, and geographical region.

RESULTS

During the study period (2019-2021), PDs received payments amounting to 2,882,821 USD. PDs were found to receive more funding than APDs, with each receiving average funding of 10,045 vs. 323 USD (p < 0.01), respectively, over the study period. There was a significant decrease in total payments from 2019 to 2020 (1,512,190 vs. 868,811 USD; p < 0.01). Total payments made in 2021 were similar compared to 2020 (905,836 vs. 868,811 USD; p = 0.1). We found that male PDs received significantly more in-industry payments when compared to female PDs (11,702 USD per PD vs. 3971 USD per PD, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

This study presents initial data that residency program leadership has robust biomedical industry relationships, and further research is warranted to investigate the impacts of these payments on program resources, educational opportunities for residents, and program outcomes. Male PDs received significantly more industry payments when compared to female PDs. Leaders in the surgical training community must cautiously ensure that these industry relationships are appropriately navigated.

Research and Nonresearch Industry Payments to Nephrologists in the United States between 2014 and 2021

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

Concerns about the financial relationships between nephrologists and the health care industry have been reported in the United States over the past decade. However, since the 2014 launch of the federal transparency database, Open Payments, few documents have explored the whole picture of research and nonresearch payments to US nephrologists from industry sources. In this study, the authors found that 87% of nephrologists have received nonresearch payments, and the aggregate amount of these payments has been increasing since 2014. Only 12% of nephrologists received research payments; these recipients were disproportionately male. In addition, the top 5% of nephrologists receiving nonresearch funds received 81% of all such payments. Nonresearch payments were larger among male nephrologists than among female nephrologists and increased by 8% annually among male nephrologists between 2014 and 2019.

BACKGROUND

Financial relationships between nephrologists and the health care industry have been a concern in the United States over the past decade.

METHODS

To evaluate industry payments to nephrologists, we conducted a cross-sectional study examining nonresearch and research payments to all US nephrologists registered in the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System between 2014 and 2021, using the Open Payments database. Payment data were descriptively analyzed on the basis of monetary value, and payment trends were evaluated by using a generalized estimating equations model.

RESULTS

From 2014 through 2021, 10,463 of 12,059 nephrologists (87%) received at least one payment from the US health care industry, totaling $778 million. The proportion of nephrologists who did not receive nonresearch payments varied each year, ranging from 38% to 51%. Nonresearch payments comprised 22% ($168 million) of overall industry payments in monetary value but 87% in the number of payments. Among those receiving payments, the median per-physician 8-year aggregated payment values were $999 in nonresearch payments and $102,329 in associated research payments. Male nephrologists were more likely than female nephrologists to receive research payments, but the per-physician amount did not differ. However, nonresearch payments were three times larger for male nephrologists and increased by 8% annually between 2014 and 2019 among male nephrologists but remained stable among female nephrologists. The top 5% of nephrologists receiving nonresearch payments received 81% of all such payments.

CONCLUSIONS

Between 2014 and 2021, 87% of US nephrologists received at least one payment from the health care industry. Notably, nonresearch payments to nephrologists have been increasing since the Open Payments database's 2014 launch. Male nephrologists were more likely than female nephrologists to receive research payments.

Leadership and Impostor Syndrome in Surgery

BACKGROUND

Impostor syndrome is an internalized sense of incompetence and not belonging. We examined associations between impostor syndrome and holding leadership positions in medicine.

STUDY DESIGN

A cross-sectional survey was distributed to US physicians from June 2021 to December 2021 through medical schools and professional organizations. Differences were tested with the chi-square test and t -test for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with holding leadership positions and experiencing impostor syndrome.

RESULTS

A total of 2,183 attending and retired physicians were included in the analytic cohort; 1,471 (67.4%) were in leadership roles and 712 (32.6%) were not. After adjustment, male physicians were more likely than women to hold leadership positions (odds ratio 1.4; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.69; p < 0.001). Non-US citizens (permanent resident or visa holder) were less likely to hold leadership positions than US citizens (odds ratio 0.3; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.55; p < 0.001). Having a leadership position was associated with lower odds of impostor syndrome (odds ratio 0.54; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.68; p < 0.001). Female surgeons were more likely to report impostor syndrome compared to male surgeons (90.0% vs 67.7%; p < 0.001), an association that persisted even when female surgeons held leadership roles. Similar trends were appreciated for female and male nonsurgeons. Impostor syndrome rates did not differ by race and ethnicity, including among those underrepresented in medicine, even after adjustment for gender and leadership role.

CONCLUSIONS

Female physicians were more likely to experience impostor syndrome than men, regardless of specialty or leadership role. Although several identity-based gaps persist in leadership, impostor syndrome among racially minoritized groups may not be a significant contributor.

Diversity Drives Innovation: The Impact of Female-Driven Publications

BACKGROUND

Gender disparities are pervasive in academic plastic surgery. Previous research demonstrates articles authored by women receive fewer citations than those written by men, suggesting the presence of implicit gender bias.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to describe current citation trends in plastic surgery literature and assess gender bias. The expectation was that women would be cited less frequently than their male peers.

METHODS

Articles published between 2017 and 2019 were collected from 8 representative plastic surgery journals stratified by impact factor. Names of primary and senior authors of the 50 most cited articles per year per journal were collected and author gender was determined via online database and internet search. The median numbers of citations by primary and senior author gender were compared by Kruskal-Wallis test.

RESULTS

Among 1167 articles, women wrote 27.3% as primary author and 18% as senior author. Women-authored articles were cited as often as those authored by men (P > 0.05) across all journal tiers. Articles with a female primary and male senior author had significantly more citations than articles with a male primary author (P = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

No implicit gender bias was identified in citation trends, a finding unique to plastic surgery. Women primary authors are cited more often than male primary authors despite women comprising a small fraction of authorship overall. Additionally, variegated authorship pairings outperformed homogeneous ones. Therefore, increasing gender diversity within plastic surgery academia remains critical.