Update: Diversity and Practice Patterns of International Craniomaxillofacial Surgeons

Publication Trends and Surgeon Perceptions: A Comprehensive Analysis of Gender Disparities in Craniofacial Surgery

In academic craniofacial surgery, gender disparities exist across various metrics including faculty positions, leadership roles, and conference representation. This study benchmarks the academic productivity of craniofacial surgeons in 2022 and surveys their perspectives regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

Total, first author, and senior author PubMed publications in 2022 were recorded for 193 craniofacial attendings and fellows. Craniofacial surgeons were also surveyed regarding academic experience, leadership roles, and DEI perceptions.

Electronic.

26 craniofacial attendings.

Total, first author, and senior author publication counts in 2022.

Women comprised 27% (n = 53) of the craniofacial surgeon cohort. Men led total publications (81% vs 19%, p < 0.001), senior-author publications (84% vs 16%, p < 0.001), average total publications (6.6 vs 4.0, p = 0.043), and average senior-author publications (3.1 vs 1.5, p = 0.02). Sub-analysis of craniofacial fellows showed a higher proportion of women (65%) with no statistical difference in total or average publication counts. Survey responses (n = 26) included a perceived lack of female representation in academic and leadership roles. Barriers included inadequate support from current leadership, systemic issues, and biases. Recommendations for improvement included mentorship programs, targeted recruitment, and equitable conference speaker selection.

Ongoing gender disparities are evident in craniofacial surgery, particularly in academic metrics. However, trends in younger cohorts exhibit more balanced gender representation, publication records, and leadership positions, indicating potential improvements. Further studies are needed to examine these cohorts more comprehensively and longitudinally. Sustained commitment, including mentorship programs and enhanced DEI efforts, is needed to continue this progress.

Geospatial and Socioeconomic Factors Interact to Predict Management and Outcomes in Cleft Lip and Palate Surgery: A Single Institution Study of 740 Patients

OBJECTIVE

Determine interactions between geospatial and socioeconomic factors influencing cleft lip and/or cleft palate (CL/P) management and outcomes.

DESIGN

Retrospective review and outcomes analysis (n = 740).

SETTING

Urban academic tertiary care center.

PATIENTS

740 patients undergoing primary (CL/P) surgery from 2009 to 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

Prenatal evaluation by plastic surgery, nasoalveolar molding, cleft lip adhesion, and age at CL/P surgery.

RESULTS

Prenatal evaluation by plastic surgery was predicted by the interaction between higher patient median block group income and shorter patient distance from the care center (OR = 1.07, p = 0.022). Nasoalveolar molding was also predicted by the interaction between higher patient median block group income and shorter distance from the care center (OR = 1.28, p = 0.016), whereas cleft lip adhesion was predicted by higher patient median block group income alone (OR = 0.41, p < 0.001). Lower patient median block group income predicted later age at cleft lip (β = -67.25, p = 0.011) and cleft palate (β = -46.35, p = 0.050) repair surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Distance from the care center and lower median income by block group interacted to significantly predict prenatal evaluation by plastic surgery and nasoalveolar molding for patients with CL/P at a large, urban, tertiary care center. Patients living farthest from the care center who received prenatal evaluation by plastic surgery or who underwent nasoalveolar molding had higher median block group income. Future work will determine mechanisms perpetuating these barriers to care.

Incomes to Outcomes: A Global Assessment of Disparities in Cleft and Craniofacial Treatment

OBJECTIVE

Recent investigations focused on health equity have enumerated widespread disparities in cleft and craniofacial care. This review introduces a structured framework to aggregate findings and direct future research.

DESIGN

Systematic review was performed to identify studies assessing health disparities based on race/ethnicity, payor type, income, geography, and education in cleft and craniofacial surgery in high-income countries (HICs) and low/middle-income countries (LMICs). Case reports and systematic reviews were excluded. Meta-analysis was conducted using fixed-effect models for disparities described in three or more studies.

SETTING

N/A.

PATIENTS

Patients with cleft lip/palate, craniosynostosis, craniofacial syndromes, and craniofacial trauma.

INTERVENTIONS

N/A.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-seven articles were included (80% cleft, 20% craniofacial; 48% HIC-based). Studies in HICs predominantly described disparities (77%,) and in LMICs focused on reducing disparities (42%). Level II-IV evidence replicated delays in cleft repair, alveolar bone grafting, and cranial vault remodeling for non-White and publicly insured patients in HICs (Grades A-B). Grade B-D evidence from LMICs suggested efficacy of community-based speech therapy and remote patient navigation programs. Meta-analysis demonstrated that Black patients underwent craniosynostosis surgery 2.8 months later than White patients (P < .001) and were less likely to undergo minimally-invasive surgery (OR 0.36, P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Delays in cleft and craniofacial surgical treatment are consistently identified with high-level evidence among non-White and publicly-insured families in HICs. Multiple tactics to facilitate patient access and adapt multi-disciplinary case in austere settings are reported from LMICs. Future efforts including those sharing tactics among HICs and LMICs hold promise to help mitigate barriers to care.

Choosing a Multidisciplinary Cleft and Craniofacial Team: Medical, Surgical, and Social Considerations

Cleft and craniofacial conditions often present with a variety of functional and esthetic sequelae optimally treated by a multidisciplinary approach. Diagnosis of such conditions pre- or postnatally may evoke parental uncertainty and anxiety, and an important primary consideration is the selection of a cleft and craniofacial team. Identifying an optimal team may be particularly important for developing long-term relationships with clinicians who will ideally work intimately with the family from diagnosis to adulthood. While families, parents, and providers should consider several factors, a dearth of evidence-based suggestions preclude critical appraisal of cleft and craniofacial teams. In this article, the authors summarize medical, surgical, and social considerations for selecting a cleft and craniofacial team to optimize patient outcomes and the family/caregiver experience.

Racial discrimination in surgery: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Racial/ethnic discrimination indicates the stereotyped or unkind conduct of superiority towards other persons based on their race or skin color. The UK General Medical Council published a statement supporting zero-tolerance approach to racism in the workplace. We aimed to systematically review racial discrimination in surgery and answer the following questions: (1) Does racial/ethnic discrimination in surgery exist in citations from the last 5 years. (2) If yes, are ways suggested to reduce racial/ethnic discrimination in surgery?

METHODS

The systematic review was performed in compliance with the PRISMA guidelines along AMSTAR 2. A 5-year literature search was carried out on PubMed for articles published from 1/1/2017 to 01/11/2022. Search terms were 'racial discrimination and surgery', 'racism OR discrimination AND surgery', 'racism OR discrimination AND surgical education'. The retrieved citations were quality assessed by MERSQI and evidence graded by GRADE.

RESULTS

A total of 9116 participants responded with a mean of 1013 (SD = 2408) responses per citations reported in 9 studies from a final list of 10 included citations. Nine studies were from USA and 1 from South Africa. There was evidence of racial discrimination in the last 5 years and the results were justified on strong scientific evidence constituting the basis for evidence grade I. The second question's answer was 'yes' which was defendable on moderate scientific recommendation and thereby establishing the basis for evidence grade II.

CONCLUSION

There was sufficient evidence for the presence of racial discrimination in surgical practice in the last 5 years. Ways to decrease racial discrimination in surgery exist. Healthcare and training systems must increase the awareness of these issues to eliminate the harmful effect on the individual as well as on the level of the surgical team performance. The existence of the discussed problems must be managed in more countries with diverse healthcare systems.

Assessment of Sex Diversity Among Craniofacial Academic Faculty

Sex diversity among plastic surgery and its subspecialties faculties lags behind many medical specialties. Despite the significant evidence in favor of diversity in leadership, female presence in high-ranking positions in medicine is lacking across multiple specialties. In this study, we aim to evaluate sex disparity among faculty across craniofacial fellowship programs by comparing the disparities among total number of faculty, program directors, years in practice, and academic rank. Our sample included 354 individuals including 193 craniofacial surgery journal editorial board members, 130 craniofacial surgery academic faculty members, and 31 craniofacial surgery association board members. A significant difference (P-value <0.0001) was seen among male and female craniofacial surgery faculty with 84.6% males. Faculty members were further subdivided by academic rank. A significant difference was found between the number of male and female faculty members at all academic positions (P-value =0.043). Of 41 full professors, 2.4% were female. There were 42 associate professors queried with 14.3% female. Similarly, 43 assistant professors were identified with 32.0% female. Years in practice after completing terminal training were analyzed across the academic faculty. There was a significant difference in the number of male and female faculty members across all experience levels (P-value =0.0037). Among the faculty with <10 years since completion of terminal training, 32.4 % were female. For faculty with 10 to 20 years after post-terminal training, 19.6% were female. For those with 20 to 30 years of experience, 0% were female. Finally, for the faculty with over 30 years since graduation, 5.9% were female. Board membership in 2 craniofacial surgery organizations was analyzed: the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association and the American Society of Maxillofacial Surgeons. Among the 17 board members of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association, 8 (47.1%) were female. For the American Society of Maxillofacial Surgeons, 5 (35.7%) were female. Data were collected for 193 editorial board members from 2 craniofacial surgery journals. There was a significant difference between the number of male and female members across both journals (χ2 value: 33.3570; P-value <0.0001). Among 56 editorial board members from Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal, 26 (46.4%) members were female. In comparison, Journal of Craniofacial Surgery has 24.8% female editorial board members. Sex diversity among faculty members is really important and should be brought into light to highlight and improve areas of particular importance and of tremendous potential impact. Given our results, surgical residencies and fellowship programs should begin to show concrete commitment and increase their efforts to recruit and retain a diverse faculty not only for the educational benefit but more importantly to achieve a higher level of care for all.