Evaluating neurosurgical society award recipients: An analysis of awardee characteristics with respect to gender, race, education, geographic location, and neurosurgical society

INTRODUCTION

Professional society awards can substantially impact career trajectory of awardees in neurosurgery. Past studies have discussed the demographics of neurosurgery conference awardees in terms of gender and professional experience; however, a full assessment of awardee qualities and characteristics has yet to be studied.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study is to provide a comprehensive evaluation of neurosurgical society winners that focuses on gender, race, academic degrees, and institutional/geographic affiliation.

METHODS

Data of awardees across 14 neurosurgical societies from 2019 to 2022 was recorded. Variables recorded include professional society, award classification, year won, age, gender, race and ethnicity, board certification status, MD graduation year, degrees obtained, awardee home institution location, h-index, and NIH-funding. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS.

RESULTS

A total of 102 unique awards from 14 different societies between 2019 and 2022 were identified. Significantly more men (83 %) as compared to women (17 %) were awardees (p < 0.001). Awardees were significantly more likely to be Caucasian as compared to any other race (p < 0.001), and Caucasian awardees were more likely to be board certified and receive NIH funding. A higher proportion of male awardees had a PhD; however, the majority of all awardees were significantly more likely to not have a PhD or be board certified (p < 0.001). The majority of awardees were based in the Northeastern United States.

CONCLUSIONS

Among winners of neurosurgical society awards, significant differences exist with respect to gender, race, ethnicity, degree type, and geographic location. Future research endeavors are needed to explore the reason for why these differences exist to ultimately develop strategies that promote equal opportunities for all neurosurgeons.

Are We Speaking the Same "Language" Regarding Underrepresented Groups in Plastic Surgery and Increasing Diversity Within Our Field?

BACKGROUND

Plastic Surgery is one of the fields that lags behind the rest when it comes to surgeons from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine (URiM). Extensive research has shown that diversity in health care not only fosters inclusivity but also saves lives. The study aim is to quantify how many integrated plastic surgery residency programs have outlined criteria defining diversity goals and/or groups of people they consider to be URiM.

METHODS

All American Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited integrated plastic surgery program Web sites were reviewed for diversity missions/statements and explicit mentions of the racial and ethnic groups. Web sites were deemed "up-to-date" if they were last updated within 6 months before the initial data collection period. The data collection period was from November 20 to 29, 2022.

RESULTS

A total of 86 program were reviewed. Only 8 programs (9%) had clear URiM criteria listed on their Web sites, whereas 26 (30%) relied on institution/department-wide criteria, 1 (1%) listed that they were adhering to American Association of Medical Colleges definition of URiM, and 51 programs (60%) had no form of definition for what is considered URiM. When looking at the programs that have some form of criteria for URiM (n = 35 [40%]), all programs (100%) considered African American/Black, Native American/Alaskan Native, Hispanic/Latinx, and Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian as groups URiM. Assessing the same subset of programs that have a form of criteria listed (n = 35 [40%]), 19 (58%) had listed other groups outside of race/ethnicity considered to be URiM for their program, and 14 (42%) programs did not. Fourteen programs (74%) considered LGBTQIA+ as a URiM group.

CONCLUSION AND SIGNIFICANCE

There still is a great deal of heterogeneity among residency programs when it comes to identifying which medical students are URiM. Numerous plastic surgery organizations have placed diversity and inclusive excellence at the forefront of their agendas; however, it is critical that residency programs also actively align their efforts in an equitable and intentional way. This study serves to encourage residency programs to evaluate their mission toward diversity, equity, and inclusion and to spark discussion toward creating a clearer URiM definition to be consistent among all programs.

Trends in Racial and Gender Diversity Among Complex General Surgical Oncology Fellowship Trainees

BACKGROUND

This study examines trends in racial and gender diversity of trainees within Complex General Surgical Oncology Fellowships, and compares the racial and gender proportions of trainees across different fields to assess potential barriers to increasing diversity within surgical oncology training programs.

METHODS

Accredited Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) data were queried to identify surgical trainees between 2013 and 2021. Trainees were identified based on self-reported race and gender and were stratified based on residency type and fellowship program type if applicable. Chi-square tests were used to assess differences between groups and trends.

RESULTS

A significantly lower proportion of individuals who are underrepresented in medicine (URMs) trained in surgical oncology fellowships (8.9%) compared with both the overall trainee pool (12.8%) and general surgery residency programs (13.1%) [p < 0.05]. There was no significant increase in URM representation in surgical oncology fellowships across the study period. Furthermore, there was a significantly lower proportion of females training in surgical oncology fellowships (38.6%) compared with the overall trainee pool (45.6%) [p < 0.05]. Despite a significant increase in female representation in general surgery residency and other surgical fellowships, there was no significant increase in female representation in surgical oncology fellowships across the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identifies disparities in gender and racial minority representation within ACGME-accredited Complex General Surgical Oncology Fellowship training programs. While steps have been taken to expand diversity, more needs to be done to combat the systemic barriers that both racial minorities and women face during their training.

Race/Ethnicity and Gender Representation in Hematology and Oncology Editorial Boards: What is the State of Diversity?

INTRODUCTION

Women and underrepresented groups in medicine hold few academic leadership positions in the field of hematology/oncology. In this study, we assessed gender and race/ethnicity representation in editorial board positions in hematology/oncology journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Editorial leadership board members from 60 major journals in hematology and oncology were reviewed; 54 journals were included in the final analysis. Gender and race/ethnicity were determined based on publicly available data for Editor-in-Chief (EiC) and Second-in-Command (SiC) (including deputy, senior, or associate editors). Descriptive statistics and chi-squared were estimated. In the second phase of the study, editors were emailed a 4-item survey to self-identify their demographics.

RESULTS

Out of 793 editorial board members, 72.6% were men and 27.4% were women. Editorial leadership were non-Hispanic white (71.1%) with Asian editorial board members representing the second largest majority at 22.5%. Women comprised only 15.9% of the EiC positions (90% White and 10% Asian). Women were about half as likely to be in the EiC position compared with men [pOR 0.47 (95% CI, 0.23-0.95, P = .03)]. Women represented 28.3% of SiC editorial positions. Surgical oncology had the lowest female representation at 2.3%.

CONCLUSION

Women and minorities are significantly underrepresented in leadership roles on Editorial Boards in hematology/oncology journals. Importantly, the representation of minority women physicians in EiC positions is at an inexorable zero.

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.

Analysis of Hematology and Oncology Fellowship Website Content and Diversity Representation

PURPOSE

Hematology and oncology (HO) lags behind all medicine subspecialties in fellows under-represented in medicine (URM) despite a growing minority patient population. Websites have been effectively used in URM recruitment. We evaluated all US HO program websites to facilitate a more informed and URM-considerate recruitment. We also performed a stratified analysis on programs affiliated with National Cancer Institute (NCI) Designated Cancer Centers, National Comprehensive Cancer Center Network (NCCN) member institutions, and ranked as a top 50 cancer hospital by US News, given their stated commitment to outreach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Websites of all 2019-2020 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited HO programs were assessed for 28 informational and three diversity categories. Websites with > 70% of categories were comprehensive. Affiliation with NCI, NCCN, and US News was noted.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-six websites were analyzed: 20% were comprehensive and 22% had any diversity information. Inclusion of diversity content and being comprehensive were significantly associated (P = .001). NCI, NCCN, and US News ranking were significantly associated with inclusion of more information in univariate analyses (P < .001, P = .008, and P < .001, respectively). Multivariate analyses showed that US News ranking was significantly associated with more information (P = .005). Diversity-related univariate and multivariate analyses showed a significant association with US News ranking (P = .006 and P = .029, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Most HO fellowship websites are not comprehensive and lack diversity content. Given COVID-19 travel restrictions limit in-person interviews, digital program presence remains an important opportunity. HO programs should offer comprehensive and inclusive websites to better inform applicants, including URM. This may increase institutional diversity and potentially improve URM representation in the HO workforce.

Evaluation of Diversity and Inclusion Presence Among US Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Residency Program Websites

ABSTRACT

The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the presence of diversity and inclusion promotion among US physical medicine and rehabilitation residency program Websites. A list of physical medicine and rehabilitation residency programs was obtained from the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database. The program Website links were obtained from the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database or Google. Two reviewers evaluated the presence of 11 predetermined diversity and inclusion metrics. The presence of individual resident and faculty photos and biographies was also evaluated. Cross-sectional and descriptive analyses were performed. A total of 90 physical medicine and rehabilitation residency program Websites were reviewed. Only 15 (17%) Websites met at least 1 of the 11 predetermined criteria. Nine (10%) Websites mentioned diversity in their program mission statement, whereas 7 (8%) included a separate diversity statement. Eight (9%) Websites had a dedicated diversity page/section. Of Websites that included information on their residents and faculty, 62 (85%) had completed 100% of resident photos and 41 (47%) Websites had completed 100% of faculty photos. A total of 30 (41%) Websites had completed 100% of resident biographies, and 15 (17%) Websites had completed 100% of faculty biographies. Less than 20% of all residency program Websites promoted diversity and inclusion. Residency Websites lack key information that prospective applicants use to evaluate diversity.

The Matilda Effect: Underrecognition of Women in Hematology and Oncology Awards

BACKGROUND

The proportion of women in the field of hematology and oncology (H&O) has increased over recent decades, but the representation of women in leadership positions remains poor. In an effort to close the gender gap in academia, it is important to report on such inequities in hopes to close these gaps and improve career development.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, observational study of published award recipients from 1994 to 2019 from the seven major H&O societies in the world. Gender was determined based on publicly available data. The χ² and Cochran-Armitage tests were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 1,642 awardees over the past 26 years, 915 met inclusion criteria. Award recipients were overwhelmingly men (77.9%) and non-Hispanic White (84.7%). Women awardees received 30.3% of the humanistic and education-related awards, whereas only receiving 16.0% of basic science awards (p < .01). Women represent 35.6% of all hematologists and oncologists but only received 24.0% of awards given to these physicians (p = .004). Black, Hispanic, and Asian awardees represented 3.7%, 3.3%, and 6.8% of the total awardees, respectively.

CONCLUSION

From 1994 to 2019, women were less likely to receive recognition awards from the seven major H&O societies studied compared with men. We also observed a considerably low proportion of minority awardees across all oncology subspecialties. Further studies examining how selection criteria favor either gender would be warranted in order to achieve equal representation in academic awards.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

In this study, women and minority groups were found to be underrepresented amongst award recipients. Significant disparities were seen in disciplines that have been historically male predominant, such as basic sciences. As awards on an international level enhance academic resumes and assist with career advancement, it is important that awards are being given in an equitable manner. First steps to promote diversity and inclusion in academic medicine is reporting of gender and racial disparities in various areas of academia.