Bullying in Academic Medicine: Experiences of Women Physician Leaders

Gender-Based Disparities in Academic Orthopaedic Surgery Physician Compensation in 2023

BACKGROUND

Orthopaedic surgery remains one of the least diverse specialties in medicine. Parity in opportunity and recognition are key factors in attracting and retaining a diverse group of individuals in the field. The primary purpose of this study was to assess gender-based discrepancies in total salary compensation by rank for academic orthopaedic surgery faculty.

METHODS

Aggregate data were obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges for fiscal year 2023. Mean compensation was compared for orthopaedic surgery faculty and total surgery faculty at all academic ranks based on gender and race.

RESULTS

Men received markedly higher total compensation for all ranks except chair within orthopaedic surgery. At the instructor level, men earned an average annual income of $554,245 while women received $229,204, demonstrating a significant pay gap (P = 0.0019). At the assistant professor (men: $628,346; women: $475,857), associate professor (men: $732,381; women: $575,877), and professor (men: $743,822; women: $472,140) levels, there existed significant pay disparities (P < 0.0001 for all three academic levels, respectively). At the chief position, men earned an average of $1,185,873 annually while women received $596,270 (P = 0.0006). Aggregate data for other surgical specialties demonstrated similar results, with women receiving lower total compensation at all ranks compared with men.

CONCLUSION

This analysis of the 2023 American Medical Colleges Faculty Salary Report demonstrates a notable pay differential between men and women in orthopaedic surgery and surgical specialties, in general, across multiple academic levels including instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, professor, and chief of division. Although there has been increasing awareness of gender-based compensation disparities within surgical specialties, particularly in orthopaedic surgery, these disparities are still clearly present.

Gender Differences in Barriers in Career Development Among a Cohort of Dental Researchers. A Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

This cross-sectional study investigated gender differences in barriers to career development among dental researchers and between academic and non-academic women.

METHODS

An anonymous 34-item survey assessing barriers to career development and workplace obstacles (14 items), along with demographic/occupation characteristics (22 items), was distributed among dental researchers at the Women In Science Network meetings at 2024 AADOCR/IADR General Session (QR code) and through AADOCR/IADR discussion board (online platform). Differences in barriers and workplace obstacles were analyzed between women and men with chi-square tests; comparisons were repeated among women working within versus outside academia.

RESULTS

A total of 233 participants completed the survey (68.7% women, 45.3% White, two-thirds working in the United States, 62% in academia). Compared to men, women more frequently reported feeling less supported by leadership (p = 0.039), taking career breaks (p = 0.004), and experiencing bullying/harassment (41.3% vs. 22.6%; p = 0.003), microaggression (55.6% vs. 33.9%; p = 0.001), and gender bias (46.9% vs. 14.5%; p < 0.001) in their workplace, particularly between ages 36 and 65. While work-life balance issues (62.8%) and stress (59.6%) were reported by both, women reported a lack of financial (p = 0.004), administrative (p = 0.045), and mentoring (p = 0.014) support more often than men. Limited to women, those in academia reported more episodes of bullying/harassment (47.9% vs. 23.3%; p = 0.016), microaggression (67.5% vs. 23.3%; p < 0.001), and gender bias (56.4% vs. 20.9%; p < 0.001) than those outside academia, especially between ages 51 and 65. Compared to non-academic women, those in academia faced more unsatisfactory leadership decisions (p = 0.003), financial (p = 0.006), administrative (p = 0.046), and mentoring (p = 0.007) support.

CONCLUSIONS

Women in dental research encounter significantly more barriers to development and workplace obstacles than men and non-academic women.

Workplace microaggressions: results of a survey of the American College of Surgeons members

BACKGROUND

Workplace microaggressions are a longstanding but understudied problem in the surgical specialties. Microaggressions in health care are linked to negative emotional and physical health outcomes and can contribute to burnout and suboptimal delivery of patient care. They also negatively impact recruitment, retention, and promotion, which often results in attrition. Further attrition at the time of an impending surgical workforce shortage risks compromising the delivery of health care to the diverse US population, and may jeopardize the financial stability of health care organizations. To date, studies on microaggressions have consisted of small focus groups comprising women faculty or trainees at a single institution. To our knowledge, there are no large, multiorganizational, gender-inclusive studies on microaggressions experienced by practicing surgeons.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine the demographic and occupational characteristics of surgeons who do and do not report experiencing workplace microaggressions and whether these experiences would influence a decision to pursue a career in surgery again.

STUDY DESIGN

We developed and internally validated a web-based survey to assess surgeon experiences with microaggressions and the associated sequelae. The survey was distributed through a convenience sample of 9 American College of Surgeons online Communities from November 2022 to January 2023. All American College of Surgeons Communities comprised members who had completed residency or fellowship training and had experience in the surgical workforce. The survey contained demographic, occupational, and validated microaggression items. Analyses include descriptive and chi-square statistics, t tests, and bivariable and multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 377 American College of Surgeons members with the following characteristics: working as a surgeon (80.9%), non-Hispanic White (71.8%), general surgeons (71.0%), aged ≥50 years (67.4%), fellowship-trained (61.0%), and women (58.4%). A total of 254 (67.4%) respondents reported experiencing microaggressions. Younger surgeons (P=.002), women (P<.001), and fellowship-trained surgeons (P=.001) were more likely to report experiencing microaggressions than their counterparts. Surgeons working in academic medical centers or health care systems with teaching responsibilities were more likely to experience microaggressions than those in private practice (P<.01). Surgeons currently working as a surgeon or those who are unable to work reported more experience with microaggressions (P=.003). There was no difference in microaggressions experienced among respondents based on surgical specialty, race/ethnicity, or whether the surgeons reported having a disability. In multivariable logistic regression, women had higher odds of experiencing microaggressions compared with men (adjusted odds ratio, 15.9; 95% confidence interval, 7.7-32.8), and surgeons in private practice had significantly lower odds of experiencing microaggressions compared with surgeons in academic medicine (adjusted odds ratio, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.1-0.8) or in health care systems with teaching responsibilities (adjusted odds ratio, 0.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.1-0.6). Among surgeons responding to an online survey, respondents reporting microaggressions were less likely to say that they would choose a career in surgery again (P<.001).

CONCLUSION

Surgeons reporting experience with microaggressions represent a diverse range of surgical specialties and subspecialties. With the continued expansion of surgeon gender and race/ethnicity representation, deliberate efforts to address and eliminate workplace microaggressions could have broad implications for improving recruitment and retention of surgeons.

Gender Differences in the Path to Medical School Deanship

Importance

Women account for only 28% of current US medical school deans. Studying the differences between women and men in their preparation to becoming deans might help to explain this discrepancy.

Objective

To identify differences in the leadership development experiences between women and men in their ascent to the medical school deanship.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this qualitative study, volunteers from the roster of the Association of American Medical Colleges Council of Deans were solicited and interviewed from June 15 to November 9, 2023. Women deans were recruited first, then men who had been appointed to their deanships at a similar time to their women counterparts were recruited. Deans were interviewed on topics related to number of applications for deanships, prior leadership roles, leadership development, personal factors, and career trajectories. Interviews were coded, and themes were extracted through conventional content analysis.

Main Outcome and Measures

Career and leadership development experiences were elicited using a semistructured interview guide.

Results

We interviewed 17 women and 17 men deans, representing 25.8% (34 of 132) of the total population of US medical school deans. Most deans (23 [67.6%]) practiced a medicine-based specialty or subspecialty. No statistically significant differences were found between women and men with regard to years to attain deanship (mean [SD], 2.7 [3.4] vs 3.7 [3.7] years), years as a dean (mean [SD], 5.7 [5.2] vs 6.0 [5.0] years), highest salary during career (mean [SD], $525 769 [$199 936] vs $416 923 [$195 848]), or medical school rankings (mean [SD], 315.5 [394.5] vs 480.5 [448.9]). Their reports indicated substantive gender differences in their paths to becoming a dean. Compared with men, women deans reported having to work harder to advance, while receiving less support and opportunities for leadership positions by their own institutions. Subsequently, women sought leadership development from external programs. Women deans also experienced gender bias when working with search firms.

Conclusions and Relevance

This qualitative study of US medical school deans found that compared with men, women needed to be more proactive, had to participate in external leadership development programs, and had to confront biases during the search process. For rising women leaders, this lack of support had consequences, such as burnout and attrition, potentially affecting the makeup of future generations of medical school deans. Institutional initiatives centering on leadership development of women is needed to mitigate the gender biases and barriers faced by aspiring women leaders.

Professional Experiences and Career Trajectories of Mid- to Senior-Career Women Clinician-Scientists: A Qualitative Study

Importance

Despite increasing evidence and recognition of persistent gender disparities in academic medicine, qualitative data detailing the association of gender-based experiences with career progression remain sparse, particularly at the mid- to senior-career stage.

Objective

To investigate the role gender has played in everyday professional experiences of mid- to senior-career women clinician-scientists and their perceptions of gender-related barriers experienced across their careers.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this qualitative study, a total of 60 of 159 invited clinician-scientists who received National Institutes of Health K08 or K23 awards between 2006 and 2009 and responded to a survey in 2021 agreed to participate. Invitees were selected using random, purposive sampling to support sample heterogeneity. Semistructured in-depth interviews were conducted January to May 2022. For this study, interviews from 31 women were analyzed using the framework approach to thematic analysis. Data analyses were performed between August and October 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Descriptive themes of participant experiences of gender and gender-based barriers in academic medicine.

Results

A total of 31 women clinician-scientists (8 identifying as Asian [25.8%], 14 identifying as White [45.2%], and 9 identifying as members of a minority group underrepresented in medicine [29.0%]; 14 aged 40-49 years [45.2%] and 14 aged 50-59 years [45.2%]) were included. Among them, 17 participants (54.8%) had children who required adult supervision or care, 7 participants (22.6%) had children who did not require supervision or care, and 6 participants (19.4%) did not have children. There were 4 dominant themes identified within participant experiences in academic medicine: the mental burden of gendered expectations at work and home, inequitable treatment of women in bureaucratic processes, subtle and less subtle professional exclusion of women, and value of communities built on shared identities, experiences, and solidarity.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that women perceived the institution of academic medicine as a male-centric system misaligned with the needs of women, with associated feelings of exclusion, disillusionment, and loss of trust in their institutions. Findings suggest that the confluence of domestic obligations and unaccommodating institutional environments may make it difficult for women clinician-scientists to achieve established timelines of career progression and productivity; these findings may have long-term implications for the well-being and retention of women in academic medicine.

Stereotype Threat and Gender Bias in Internal Medicine Residency: It is Still Hard to be in Charge

BACKGROUND

Despite similar numbers of women and men in internal medicine (IM) residency, women face unique challenges. Stereotype threat is hypothesized to contribute to underrepresentation of women in academic leadership, and exploring how it manifests in residency may provide insight into forces that perpetuate gender disparities.

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the prevalence of stereotype threat in IM residency and explore experiences contributing to that stereotype threat.

DESIGN

We used a mixed methods study design. First, we surveyed IM residents using the Stereotype Vulnerability Scale (SVS) to screen for stereotype threat. Second, we conducted focus groups with women who scored high on the SVS to understand experiences that led to stereotype threat.

PARTICIPANTS

The survey was sent to all IM residents at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), in September-November 2019. Focus groups were conducted at UCSF in Spring 2020.

APPROACH

The survey included an adapted version of the SVS. For focus groups, we developed a focus group guide informed by literature on stereotype threat. We used a thematic approach to data analysis. The mixed methods design enabled us to draw metainferences by integrating the two data sources.

KEY RESULTS

Survey response rate was 61% (110/181). Women were significantly more likely than men to have a score indicating stereotype threat vulnerability (77% vs 0%, p < 0.001). Four themes from focus groups characterized women's experiences of gender bias and stereotype threat: gender norm tension, microaggressions and sexual harassment, authority questioned, and support and allyship.

CONCLUSIONS

Gender-based stereotype threat is highly prevalent among women IM residents. This phenomenon poses a threat to confidence and ability to execute patient care responsibilities, detracting from well-being and professional development. These findings indicate that, despite robust representation of women in IM training, further attention is needed to address gendered experiences and contributors to women's vulnerability to stereotype threat.

Editorial bullying: an exploration of acts impacting publication ethics and related environment

Bullying and misconduct in the realm of scientific and scholarly publishing have the potential to jeopardize the transparency and integrity of academic discourse. While misconduct issues among authors have been extensively discussed, the role of editors in perpetuating or mitigating such problems has garnered less attention. Scientific publishing serves as the gateway for disseminating innovative research findings globally, and the role of editors, especially Editor/s-in-chief, is pivotal in safeguarding the rigor and credibility of published research. Editor bullying and misconduct involve behaviors that undermine the scientific process, compromise research integrity, and harm the careers and wellbeing of individuals. These actions may manifest as biased decision-making, suppression of dissenting voices, or the exploitation of power dynamics in the peer review process. To address these issues, preventive and therapeutic approaches are suggested, including enhancing awareness, recognizing and mitigating exacerbating factors, and upholding professionalism. Moreover, the importance of a conflict-of-interest declaration for editors is highlighted to ensure transparency and integrity in the editorial process. The present mini-review aims to shed light on editor bullying, illuminating its gravity and the urgency to address these issues within the academic publishing domain/s. This review underscores the more subtle, yet equally significant, issue of professional misconduct in the editorial realm of scientific journals.

Commitment to inclusion: The importance of collaboration in gender equity work

Despite decades of faculty professional development programs created to prepare women for leadership, gender inequities persist in salary, promotion, and leadership roles. Indeed, men still earn more than women, are more likely than women to hold the rank of professor, and hold the vast majority of positions of power in academic medicine. Institutions demonstrate commitment to their faculty's growth by investing resources, including creating faculty development programs. These programs are essential to help prepare women to lead and navigate the highly matrixed, complex systems of academic medicine. However, data still show that women persistently lag behind men in their career advancement and salary. Clearly, training women to adapt to existing structures and norms alone is not sufficient. To effectively generate organizational change, leaders with power and resources must commit to gender equity. This article describes several efforts by the Office of Faculty in the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine to broaden inclusivity in collaborative work for gender equity. The authors are women and men leaders in the Office of Faculty, which is within the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine dean's office and includes Women in Science and Medicine. Here, we discuss potential methods to advance gender equity using inclusivity based on our institutional experience and on the findings of other studies. Ongoing data collection to evaluate programmatic outcomes in the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine will be reported in the future.

Disrupting Faculty-on-Faculty Bullying in Academic Medicine: An Innovative Workshop

Introduction

Bullying, a severe form of mistreatment, occurs when an individual in an authority position intentionally imposes negative persistent behaviors on a target. In academic medicine, bullying is used to impede the target's professional growth. While there is abundant literature on how to disrupt other forms of mistreatment, the literature related to bullying among academic medical faculty members is scarce.

Methods

We developed an interactive workshop on disrupting faculty-on-faculty bullying in academic medicine, with a focus on gender-based bullying, following Kern's model of curriculum development. The workshop consisted of three didactics on the scope of bullying in academic medicine: identifying bullying behaviors, learning strategies to mitigate bullying, and understanding what constitutes comprehensive antibullying policies. The workshop also included three small-group activities to reinforce learned concepts.

Results

Eighty-seven faculty attended one of three workshops held over a 6-month period. We received 24 completed evaluations for a 28% rate of return. Most participants rated workshop activities as being well taught and of great value. Many respondents commented that after participating in the workshop, they realized they had likely experienced or witnessed bullying in their careers and that mitigating bullying required effort at multiple levels (individual, institutional, national).

Discussion

This workshop fills a need in academic medicine through addressing how faculty members and institutions can help themselves and others to disrupt bullying. We will continue to disseminate this workshop at national conferences and at individual institutions. This resource will allow other educators to offer the workshop at their home institutions.

Gender Equity in Academic Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Departments: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study

IMPORTANCE

Gender equity in obstetrics and gynecology remains a barrier to career mobility and workplace satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate gender equity for academic positions in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (FPMRS) divisions with an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited fellowship in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a cross-sectional observational study of all FPMRS divisions with an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited fellowship program in the United States in July 2020 using publicly available demographic and academic data collected from online search engines. Gender equity in academic FPMRS was assessed by gender representation, academic appointment, and research productivity of each attending physician within the division. Research productivity was assessed using both the H-index with career length controlled for with the M-quotient.

RESULTS

There were 348 attending physicians from 72 FPMRS divisions (198 female [56.9%], 150 male [43.1%]). A large percentage of female attending physicians were at the assistant professor level (75.8% [94 of 124]) when compared with their male counterparts (24.4% [30 of 124]; P < 0.001). Conversely, there were a larger percentage of male attending physicians (62.2% [56 of 90]) at the professor level when compared with their female counterparts (37.8% [34 of 90]; P < 0.001). There was no difference in research productivity between male and female attending physicians after controlling for career length with the M-quotient (P = 0.65). Only age (odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.24) and the M-quotient (odds ratio, 36.17, 95% confidence interval, 8.57-152.73) were significantly associated with professorship.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found that there are more female attending physicians in FPMRS and that most are assistant professors. Male and female FPMRS attending physicians had similar research productivity with respect to their career lengths. Gender was not a determinant for achieving a "professor" appointment.

Why Gender-Based Bullying Is Normalized in Academic Medicine: Experiences and Perspectives of Women Physician Leaders

Background: Bullying has been identified as a problem in the academic medicine. Bullying behaviors persist because organizational cultures have allowed them to become normalized. In academic medicine, women are more likely to be bullied than men. Our purpose was to explain why gender-based bullying persists in academic medicine and identify mitigation strategies. Methods: We interviewed senior faculty women physicians who graduated from the Hedwig van Ameringen Executive Leadership in Academic Medicine^® program. We asked participants about their experience with bullying and its consequence on their careers. We also asked about the types of culture they think perpetuates bullying and their thoughts on how best to mitigate bullying. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded using Averbuch's Cycle of Academic Bullying as a framework. Results: We sampled 30 women physician leaders for interviews from a pool of 96 volunteers who had screened positive for experiencing bullying. All 30 either experienced or witnessed bullying during their careers. Bullying behaviors included public humiliation, defamation, verbal disparagement, and social isolation. Subjects suffered numerous negative effects from bullying such as stress, burnout, depression, and having to leave the job. Participants believed bullying behaviors persisted due to hierarchical organizational cultures. Barriers to reporting and mitigation were thought to originate from lack of leadership combined with ineffective policies and reporting mechanisms. Conclusions: Dysfunctional hierarchies embedded in organizational cultures within academic medicine have contributed to the normalization of bullying. Committed leadership, focused on implementing comprehensive bullying prevention policies, is needed to promote an inclusive culture in which everyone feels that they belong.