Promotion rates for assistant and associate professors in obstetrics and gynecology

Gender and Racial Diversity Among Obstetrics and Gynecology Departments and Gynecologic Oncology Divisions in Canada: Are We There Yet?

OBJECTIVES

Gender and racial diversity in academic Canadian departments of obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) have not been previously described. We examined gender representation in leadership in academic OBGYN departments and gynecologic oncology (GO) divisions, and determined factors predictive of leadership and promotion including racialized status.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study of Canadian residency-affiliated academic OBGYN departments queried institutional websites in January 2021 to compile a list of academic faculty. Subjective gender was assessed using photographs and pronouns, and racialized status was determined using photographs. Logistic regression analyses determined predictive factors for leadership roles. Fassiotto et al. rank equity indices (REI) and Hofler et al. representation ratios were calculated.

RESULTS

Within 16 Canadian institutions there were 354 (33.6%) men and 699 (66.4%) women, with 18.3% racialized faculty. Men were more likely to reach full professorship (P < 0.00001) and leadership positions of department chair, vice-chair or division head (P = 0.01). Representation ratios for women in OBGYN were <1 for all administrative leadership positions, and pairwise comparisons of the probability of promotion for women OBGYNs using REI reveal significant disparities between senior and junior administrative leadership and professorial ranks. Racialized physicians were less likely to have attained full professorship (P = 0.002). Ninety-seven academic GOs were identified: 68 (70.1%) were women, 17 (17.5%) racialized. Seven GO divisions (44%) had no racialized members. On multivariate analysis, only year of completion of fellowship was predictive of leadership.

CONCLUSION

In academic Canadian OBGYN departments women are underrepresented in leadership and full professor positions. Racialized faculty are underrepresented in full professorship.

Perception of gender disparity in academic reproductive endocrinology and infertility

The aim of this study was to identify gender differences in leadership/academic rank and attitudes regarding gender representation among academic Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility subspecialists. Members of the Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility (SREI) were surveyed regarding gender, academic rank, and attitudes concerning gender disparity in academic medicine in March 2021. Univariate comparisons were performed using Chi-squared and Fischer-exact tests with significance at p ≤ 0.05. A total of 237 SREI members completed the survey with a response rate of 28.8%. Of those, 176 practiced in academic medicine. The majority (76.7%) have been in practice for greater than 10 years. The female-to-male ratio changed over time with ratios of 1.1:1 for those in practice over 10 years and 5.8:1 for those less than 10 years. Of providers in practice greater than 10 years, there were significantly more male vs. female full professors (72.3% vs. 48.5%, p < 0.01), less frequent male assistant professors (3% vs.17%, p < 0.01) and a similar percentage of male and female associate professors (24.6% vs. 34.3%, p = 0.2). Among those in practice for less than 10 years, there were no differences in academic rank between males and females. When stratified by years in practice, there was no difference in gender among division directors, fellowship directors, or assistant/associate fellowship directors. 68.2% of respondents believe there is a gender disparity in academic rank, with females more likely to have this opinion (79% vs. 52.1%, p < 0.001). The female-to-male ratio in academic REI has dramatically changed with time. Even with this shift, the majority of providers believe in a gender disparity regarding academic rank that is due to systemic factors limiting the academic advancement of females. When stratified by years in practice, women in practice greater than 10 years were less likely to hold the rank of full professor than men despite equal leadership positions.

Racial, Ethnic, and Sex Diversity in Academic Medical Leadership

Importance

For the past 50 years, significant gaps have existed in gender and racial diversity across various medical specialties, despite the many benefits of a diverse physician workforce. One proposed approach to increasing diversity is top-down diversification, in which diverse leadership results in increased minority and female workforce representation.

Objective

To investigate the changes in academic medical leadership diversity from 2007 to 2019 and to assess the recent leadership diversity of various specialties compared with the averages across all specialties.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a cross-sectional analysis of physicians in varying academic roles in 2007, 2019, and 2020. Demographic data were collected via specialized reports from the Association of American Medical Colleges. Included were 4 primary care specialties (internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics, obstetrics/gynecology [OB/GYN] and 4 surgical specialties (orthopedic surgery, neurologic surgery, otolaryngology [ENT], general surgery). Study participants were faculty, program directors, and chairpersons. Data were analyzed for the years 2007, 2019, and 2020.

Intervention

Self-reporting of demographic information to residency programs collected via the Graduate Medical Education Track Survey.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Proportions of each race/ethnicity and sex among cohorts of participants and comparisons between them.

Results

The total number of individuals investigated included 186 210 faculty from 2019 (79 441 female [42.7%]), 6417 program directors from 2020 (2392 female [37.3%]), 1016 chairpersons from 2007 (89 female [8.8%]), and 2424 chairpersons from 2019 (435 female [17.9%]). When comparing chairperson diversity from 2007 to 2019, only internal medicine and general surgery experienced significant increases in minority (aggregate category used throughout the investigation to refer to anyone who self-identified as anything other than non-Hispanic White) representation (90% increase [11.7 percentage points, from 13.0% in 2007 to 24.7% in 2019]; P = .01 and 96% increase [13.0 percentage points, from 13.5% in 2007 to 26.5% in 2019]; P < .001), respectively; meanwhile, several specialties saw significant increases in female representation during this period (family medicine by 107.4%, P =.002; pediatrics by 83.1%, P =.006; OB/GYN by 53.2%, P =.045; orthopedic surgery by +4.1 percentage points, P =.04; general surgery by 226.9%, P =.005). In general, surgical specialties had lower leadership diversity than the average diversity of all residency programs, whereas primary care specialties had similar or increased diversity.

Conclusions and Relevance

Study results suggest that some specialties have made significant contributions toward bridging diversity gaps whereas others continue to lag behind. Our recommendations to improve academic medical leadership diversity include programs and institutions (1) publishing efforts and outcomes of diversity representation, (2) incorporating a representative demographic for leadership selection committees, and (3) actively promoting the importance of diversity throughout the selection process.

Gender, Race, and Ethnicity Representation Among Gastroenterologists: A Review of Recent Trends

Diversity in medicine and the gastroenterology (GI) subspecialty is a topic warranting attention, especially in light of a number of recent incidents highlighting the persistence of racial, ethnic, and gender injustice in our nation. Insight into this topic is important insofar as the multitude of racial, ethnic, and gender backgrounds comprising the national patient population should be reflected, to the degree possible, by the providers serving it. Inclusion becomes particularly imperative because the quality of health care and health research and bridging disparities may be closely linked to adequate representation among healthcare providers. Despite the urgency of this topic, there is a paucity of data examining trends in gender and racial/ethnic diversity among medical professionals within the field of GI. In this narrative review, we examine how ethnoracial and gender representation has changed over time at critical points along the educational, training, and career pathways in GI.

Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Diversity in Academic Orthopaedic Surgery Leadership

BACKGROUND

Multiple investigations in the past 50 years have documented a lack of racial/ethnic and gender diversity in the orthopaedic surgery workforce when compared with other specialties. Studies in other industries suggest that diversification of leadership can help diversify the underlying workforce. This study investigates changes in racial/ethnic and gender diversity of orthopaedic surgery leadership from 2007 to 2019 and compares leadership diversity to that of other surgical and nonsurgical specialties, specifically in terms of chairpersons and program directors.

METHODS

Demographic data were collected from The Journal of the American Medical Association and the Association of American Medical Colleges. Aggregate data were utilized to determine the racial, ethnic, and gender composition of academic leadership for 8 surgical and nonsurgical specialties in 2007 and 2019. Comparative analysis was conducted to identify changes in diversity among chairpersons between the 2 years. Furthermore, current levels of diversity in orthopaedic leadership were compared with those of other specialties.

RESULTS

A comparative analysis of diversity among program directors revealed that orthopaedic surgery had significantly lower minority representation (20.5%) when compared with the nonsurgical specialties (adjusted p < 0.01 for all) and, with the exception of neurological surgery, had the lowest proportion of female program directors overall, at 9.0% (adjusted p < 0.001 for all). From 2007 to 2019, orthopaedic surgery experienced no change in minority representation among chairpersons (adjusted p = 0.73) but a significant increase in female representation among chairpersons, from 0.0% (0 of 102) to 4.1% (5 of 122) (adjusted p = 0.04). Lastly, a significant decrease in minority and female representation was observed when comparing the diversity of 2019 orthopaedic faculty to orthopaedic leadership in 2019/2020 (p < 0.05 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

Diversity in orthopaedic surgery leadership has improved on some key fronts, specifically in gender diversity among chairpersons. However, a significant decrease in minority and gender representation was observed between 2019 orthopaedic faculty and 2019/2020 orthopaedic leadership (p < 0.05), which was a trend shared by other specialties. These findings may suggest a more pervasive problem in diversity of medical leadership that is not only limited to orthopaedic surgery.

Gender differences in faculty rank among academic physicians: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Many studies have analysed gender bias in academic medicine; however, no comprehensive synthesis of the literature has been performed. We conducted a pooled analysis of the difference in the proportion of men versus women with full professorship among academic physicians.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Education Resources Information Center and PsycINFO were searched from inception to 3 July 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

All original studies reporting faculty rank stratified by gender worldwide were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Study screening, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers, with a third author resolving discrepancies. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 5897 articles. 218 studies were included with 991 207 academic physician data points. Men were 2.77 times more likely to be full professors (182 271/643 790 men vs 30 349/251 501 women, OR 2.77, 95% CI 2.57 to 2.98). Although men practised for longer (median 18 vs 12 years, p<0.00002), the gender gap remained after pooling seven studies that adjusted for factors including time in practice, specialty, publications, h-index, additional PhD and institution (adjusted OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.20). Meta-regression by data collection year demonstrated improvement over time (p=0.0011); however, subgroup analysis showed that gender disparities remain significant in the 2010-2020 decade (OR 2.63, 95% CI 2.48 to 2.80). The gender gap was present across all specialties and both within and outside of North America. Men published more papers (mean difference 17.2, 95% CI 14.7 to 19.7), earned higher salaries (mean difference $33 256, 95% CI $25 969 to $40 542) and were more likely to be departmental chairs (OR 2.61, 95% CI 2.19 to 3.12).

CONCLUSIONS

Gender inequity in academic medicine exists across all specialties, geographical regions and multiple measures of success, including academic rank, publications, salary and leadership. Men are more likely than women to be full professors after controlling for experience, academic productivity and specialty. Although there has been some improvement over time, the gender disparity in faculty rank persists.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020197414.

Competing Risks Analysis of Promotion and Attrition in Academic Medicine: A National Study of U.S. Medical School Graduates

PURPOSE

Competing risk methodology was used to identify variables associated with promotion and attrition of newly appointed full-time instructors or assistant professors in U.S. MD-granting medical schools.

METHOD

A national sample of U.S. MD-granting medical school graduates in calendar years 1997-2004 who received initial full-time instructor or assistant professor appointments from January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2012, was followed through December 31, 2013. Adjusted proportional subdistribution hazard ratios (aSHRs) measured the effects of demographic, educational, and institutional variables on promotion and attrition.

RESULTS

The final study sample included 27,219 full-time instructors (n = 10,470) and assistant professors (n = 16,749). In all models (entire sample and stratified by initial rank), faculty who reported all other (vs. full-time faculty) career intentions at graduation and were underrepresented racial/ethnic minority (vs. white) faculty had lower aSHRs for promotion and greater aSHRs for attrition, whereas research-intensive (vs. non-research-intensive) medical school graduates, faculty at schools without a tenure track, and mentored K awardees had greater aSHRs for promotion and lower aSHRs for attrition. In all models, faculty with ≥ $100,000 (vs. no) debt at graduation had greater aSHRs for attrition. Among instructors, women had lower aSHRs for attrition than men, but among assistant professors, women had greater aSHRs for attrition.

CONCLUSIONS

This study adds new knowledge about career trajectories of academic medicine faculty initially appointed as full-time instructors. Career development interventions and research mentoring during and after medical school and debt reduction programs could help increase academic medicine faculty retention and promotion.

A Randomized Controlled Trial to Improve the Success of Women Assistant Professors

Background: Given the persistent disparity in the advancement of women compared with men faculty in academic medicine, it is critical to develop effective interventions to enhance women's careers. We carried out a cluster-randomized, multifaceted intervention to improve the success of women assistant professors at a research-intensive medical school.

Materials and Methods: Twenty-seven departments/divisions were randomly assigned to intervention or control groups. The three-tiered intervention included components that were aimed at (1) the professional development of women assistant professors, (2) changes at the department/division level through faculty-led task forces, and (3) engagement of institutional leaders. Generalized linear models were used to test associations between assignment and outcomes, adjusting for correlations induced by the clustered design.

Results: Academic productivity and work self-efficacy improved significantly over the 3-year trial in both intervention and control groups, but the improvements did not differ between the groups. Average hours worked per week declined significantly more for faculty in the intervention group as compared with the control group (−3.82 vs. −1.39 hours, respectively, p = 0.006). The PhD faculty in the intervention group published significantly more than PhD controls; however, no differences were observed between MDs in the intervention group and MDs in the control group.

Conclusions: Significant improvements in academic productivity and work self-efficacy occurred in both intervention and control groups, potentially due to school-wide intervention effects. A greater decline in work hours in the intervention group despite similar increases in academic productivity may reflect learning to “work smarter” or reveal efficiencies brought about as a result of the multifaceted intervention. The intervention appeared to benefit the academic productivity of faculty with PhDs, but not MDs, suggesting that interventions should be more intense or tailored to specific faculty groups.

Comparison of Women in Department Leadership in Obstetrics and Gynecology With Those in Other Specialties

OBJECTIVE

To compare the representation of women in obstetrics and gynecology department-based leadership to other clinical specialties while accounting for proportions of women in historical residency cohorts.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional observational study. The gender of department-based leaders (chair, vice chair, division director) and residency program directors was determined from websites of 950 academic departments of anesthesiology, diagnostic radiology, general surgery, internal medicine, neurology, obstetrics and gynecology, pathology, pediatrics, and psychiatry. Each specialty's representation ratio-proportion of leadership roles held by women in 2013 divided by proportion of residents in 1990 who were women-and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. A ratio of 1 indicates proportionate representation.

RESULTS

Women were significantly underrepresented among chairs for all specialties (ratios 0.60 or less, P≤.02) and division directors for all specialties except anesthesiology (ratio 1.13, 95% CI 0.87-1.46) and diagnostic radiology (ratio 0.97, 95% CI 0.81-1.16). The representation ratio for vice chair was below 1.0 for all specialties except anesthesiology; this finding reached statistical significance only for pathology, pediatrics, and psychiatry. Women were significantly overrepresented as residency program directors in general surgery, anesthesiology, obstetrics and gynecology, and pediatrics (ratios greater than 1.19, P≤.046). Obstetrics and gynecology and pediatrics had the highest proportions of residents in 1990 and department leaders in 2013 who were women.

CONCLUSION

Despite having the largest proportion of leaders who were women, representation ratios demonstrate obstetrics and gynecology is behind other specialties in progression of women to departmental leadership. Women's overrepresentation as residency program directors raises concern because education-based academic tracks may not lead to major leadership roles.

Subspecialty and gender of obstetrics and gynecology faculty in department-based leadership roles

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the cohort who may become senior leaders in obstetrics and gynecology by examining the gender and subspecialty of faculty in academic department administrative and educational leadership roles.

METHODS

This is an observational study conducted through web sites of U.S. obstetrics and gynecology residency programs accredited in 2012-2013.

RESULTS

In obstetrics and gynecology departmental administrative leadership roles, women comprised 20.4% of chairs, 36.1% of vice chairs, and 29.6% of division directors. Among educational leaders, women comprised 31.9% of fellowship directors, 47.3% of residency directors, and 66.1% of medical student clerkship directors. Chairs were most likely to be maternal-fetal medicine faculty (38.2%) followed by specialists in general obstetrics and gynecology (21.8%), reproductive endocrinologists (15.6%), and gynecologic oncologists (14.7%). Among chairs, 32.9% are male maternal-fetal medicine specialists. Family planning had the highest representation of women (80.0%) among division directors, whereas reproductive endocrinology and infertility had the lowest (15.8%). The largest proportion of women chairs, vice chairs, residency program directors, and medical student clerkship directors were specialists in general obstetrics and gynecology.

CONCLUSION

Women remained underrepresented in the departmental leadership roles of chair, vice chair, division director, and fellowship director. Representation of women was closer to parity among residency program directors, in which women held just under half of positions. Nearly one in three department chairs was a male maternal-fetal medicine specialist. Compared with subspecialist leaders, specialist leaders in general obstetrics and gynecology were more likely to be women.