Women physicians underrepresented in American Academy of Neurology recognition awards

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.

Does gender predict research awards among prolific suicidologists? A research note

BACKGROUND

Rewards can both validate and promote the stature of a researcher in their field. Research has been mixed on the role of gender as a predictor of receiving scholarly awards, but much of it lacks control for research excellence, and awards in interdisciplinary associations have been neglected. This study fills these gaps for suicidology.

METHODS

Bibliometric data from the Web of Science was utilized for this study. To control for research excellence the analysis is restricted to the 116 most highly prolific researchers, each with 70 or more works published on suicide, from the Web of Science. The research awards in suicidology, given by three different interdisciplinary associations, include the Louis I. Dublin Award, the Morselli Medal, and the Stengel Research Award. The link between gender and receipt of a major award is adjusted for possible mediators including long-term research productivity (h-index), years of experience, and organizational prestige.

RESULTS

While the percentage of women winning awards is less than that of men, we find that there is no significant difference between the genders. The quality of research and years of experience predict the receipt of each award.

CONCLUSION

Based on a bibliometric analysis, women are not at a disadvantage in receiving research awards in suicidology. These results are consistent with recent research on gender and awards in economics, mathematics, and psychology.

Analysis of Faculty Gender and Race in Scholarly Achievements in Academic Neurology

Background: Intersection of gender and race and/or ethnicity in academic medicine is understudied; we aim to understand these factors in relation to scholarly achievements for neurology faculty. Methods: Faculty from 19 US neurology departments completed a survey (2021-2022) to report rank, leadership positions, publications, funded projects, awards, and speaker invitations. Regression analyses examined effects of gender, race, and their intersectionality on these achievements. Women, Black/Indigenous/People of Color (BIPOC), and BIPOC women were comparator groups. Results: Four hundred sixty-two faculty responded: 55% women, 43% men; 31% BIPOC, 63% White; 21% BIPOC women, 12% BIPOC men, 36% White women, 31% White men. Men and White faculty are more likely to be full professors than women and BIPOC faculty. The number of leadership positions, funded projects, awards, and speaker invitations are significantly greater in White compared to BIPOC faculty. Relative to BIPOC women, the number of leadership positions is significantly higher among BIPOC men, White women, and White men. Publication numbers for BIPOC men are lower, number of funded projects and speaker invitations for White women are higher, and number of awards among White men and White women is higher compared to BIPOC women. Discussion: Our study highlights that inequities in academic rank, award number, funded projects, speakership invitations, and leadership roles disproportionately impacted BIPOC women. More studies are needed to evaluate gender and race and/or ethnicity intersectionality effects on faculty achievements, reasons for inequities, recognition, and potential solutions.

A Qualitative Study of Facilitators, Barriers, and Gender Disparities in Academic Neurology

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

To understand the challenges and facilitators of a successful academic neurology research career broadly and to identify gender-based disparities specifically.

METHODS

In 2019, participants self-identifying as researchers, preregistered for the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) Annual Meeting, ≥7 years out of residency, and authors of ≥1 AAN meeting abstract submission (2006-2009) were selected to participate in the qualitative study (purposeful sampling strategy). To increase diversity, 15 participants were invited by members involved in the AAN until interviews were complete. The AAN at the time of the study asked gender using sex-based terms. Participants were asked predetermined and open-ended questions. Themes were generated using a flexible coding methodology.

RESULTS

Sixty neurologists (31 women, 29 men) participated in the focus groups and individual interviews. Six predetermined domains relevant to a successful neurology research career were explored: success definitions, facilitators, barriers, biases and harassment, mitigation strategies, and participant recommendations. Gender-based differences were noted during discussions focused on barriers and biases and harassment. Lack of women mentors, under-representation of women in senior faculty positions, and competing responsibilities when children are young were identified as barriers to women's success. Participants acknowledged that known gender disparities in compensation, academic promotion, and publications disproportionately affect women. Women shared more experiences of bias and harassment. Some men felt that gender-based biases were minimal to nonexistent. Participants shared their recommendations on ways to mitigate gender disparities and pursue a neurology research career. Leadership involvement locally and nationally in advocating and implementing change outside academic institutions was also mentioned as being valuable.

DISCUSSION

Our findings may not be generalizable to academic neurologists outside the United States. Women academic neurology researchers experienced disparities across several domains affecting success: lower compensation, fewer women mentors, bias, and harassment. Women are less likely to be promoted, have less research success, and job satisfaction. Shared experiences of bias and harassment among women neurology researchers indicate continuing opportunity for education among departments and colleagues for preventive measures. These qualitative results indicate gender disparities among US-based neurology researchers and highlight the importance of the continued need to work toward equality and equity in disparate gender-related issues in the careers of neurology researchers.

Towards equal representation - A bibliometric analysis of authorships in Laboratory Medicine and Clinical Chemistry from the United States, Canada, and Europe (2005-2022)

Objectives

Although diversity has been demonstrated to benefit research groups, women remain underrepresented in most scientific disciplines, including Laboratory Medicine and Clinical Chemistry. In order to promote diversity and equality in scientific communities, understanding the gender distribution of authorship is crucial.

Methods

This study included a total of 30,268 Web of Science-listed Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine publications from the United States of America, Canada, and the member countries of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine from 2005 to 2022. In addition to the publication productivity of female and male authors over time, gender-specific publication characteristics and country-specific gender distributions of authorships were examined.

Results

Overall, publications with female first authors increased by 49 % between 2005 and 2022, averaging 42 % female first authors. Eastern Europe (60 %) and Southern Europe (51 %) had particularly high proportions of female first authors. While female last authorship was the most predictive of female first authorship, with an odds ratio of 2.01 (95 % CI: 1.91-2.12, p < 0.001), only 27 % of last authors were female. Moreover, citation rate was not predictive of female first or last authorship.

Conclusion

Authorship in Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine is moving towards gender parity. This trend is more pronounced for first authors than for last authors. Further research into the citations of female authors in this discipline could be a starting point for increasing the visibility of women researchers in science. Moreover, geographical differences may provide opportunities for future research on gender parity across disciplines.

Gender distribution of North American professional radiology society award recipients

PURPOSE

Women remain underrepresented in radiology and there is a paucity of literature examining the recognition of their professional contributions to the discipline. The purpose of this study was to examine the gender distribution of award winners across all North American radiology societies.

METHODS

The gender distribution of 1923 award recipients from 21 North American radiology societies between 1960 and 2021 was examined. Awards were divided into four categories: leadership, teaching, contribution to radiology, and promising new/young societal member. Primary outcome was the total proportion of awards received by gender. All data was compared to the gender distribution of working radiologists in North America.

RESULTS

A total of 1923 award recipients were identified between 1960 and 2021. Seventy-nine percent of award recipients were men (n = 1527) and 21 % were women (n = 396). As of 1970, the proportion of women award recipients increased 0.55 % ± 0.07 % each year. The proportion of women receiving radiological awards after 2018 is equal to or surpassing the percentage of women radiologists. Women received 36.4 % of leadership, 33.6 % of promising new member, 30.1 % of teaching, and 14.4 % of lifetime contribution awards.

CONCLUSIONS

In the last five years, the proportion of women receiving awards was equal to or greater than the proportion of women radiologists. Women received more leadership awards and fewer lifetime contributor awards compared to men.

Recognizing Excellence in Maternal and Child Health (MCH) Epidemiology: The National MCH Epidemiology Awards

Purpose

Professionals in the field of maternal and child health (MCH) epidemiology are publicly recognized by the Coalition for Excellence in MCH Epidemiology representing 16 national MCH agencies and organizations.

Description

During the CityMatCH Leadership and MCH Epidemiology Conference, the national awards are presented to public health professionals for improving the health of women, children, and families. The awards have evolved over the last two decades with focus on awardees that represent more types of MCH public health professionals.

Assessment

Since 2000, the Coalition has presented 111 national awards in the areas of advancing knowledge, effective practice, outstanding leadership, excellence in teaching and mentoring, early career professional achievement, and lifetime achievement. Effective practice awards were most often presented at 45 awards, followed by early career professional achievement with 20. The awardees varied by place of employment with 37 employed at academic institutions, 33 in federal government positions, 32 in state or county government, seven in non-profit and two in clinical organizations. Awards were almost equally distributed by gender with 49 presented to women and 48 to men. Assessment of career advancement among previous awardees and acknowledging workforce challenges are gaps identified within the national awards process.

Conclusion

Recognition of deserving MCH professionals sets the standard for those entering the field of MCH epidemiology and offers opportunity to recognize those who have built capacity and improved the health of women, children, and families.

[Awards in pathology-a man's world?]

BACKGROUND

Awards provide their recipients with fame and recognition, and subsequently facilitate publications and acquisition of external funding through increased visibility. We hypothesize that despite increasing representation in pathology, women are underrepresented as awardees in the German Society of Pathology and consequently there is an associated imbalance between genders.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Published data from the German Society of Pathology on female awardees during the period from 2000 to 2022 were examined. Only awards specifically dedicated to the field of pathology were considered. In addition, the publicly available data of the German Medical Association on gender and age distribution of pathologists in Germany were considered as reference material.

RESULTS

A total of six different awards were included in the analysis. Among the 143 awardees across 150 individual awards in the period from 2000 to 2022, 55 (38.4%) of the awardees were female compared to an average percentage of 31% of women working in the field of pathology in the 23-year period under consideration. Consequently, female awardees in pathology were not underrepresented when compared to the national figures on the proportion of women in the field of pathology. However, the distribution of female awardees across individual awards suggests that women were increasingly represented in less prestigious research and doctoral awards, while men made up a large proportion of awardees of honorary awards (0% women) and prestigious awards (17% women).

Is there a gender gap in clinical neurosciences? A cross-sectional analysis of female participation in academic neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry

Gender equality or the lack thereof is a constantly recurring theme. Here, we sought to provide an overview of the status with respect to the participation and leadership of female doctors in clinical neuroscience analyzing different disciplines (neurosurgery, neurology and psychiatry). A total of 1910 articles published in six representative journals (07-12/2020) were reviewed. Of these, 1327 were original research papers, 145 invited publications and 303 letters/comments. Out of a total of 15,080 authors, 4365 (29%) were women. The percentage of female authors was found to differ significantly between the different specialties (19% in neurosurgery, 39% in neurology and 45% in psychiatry). Women were last authors in 9.5% of the papers in neurosurgery, 29% in neurology and 39% in psychiatry Based on these findings, it can be concluded that gender disparity in academic neuroscience is quite conspicuous. Our review seeks to address the reasons behind this phenomenon in the context of new publications as well as various cultural and historical underpinnings.

Award Recipients for Pediatric Gastroenterology: A Descriptive Analysis of Gender Distribution

Society awards are an important component of recognition in medicine and for career advancement such as promotion. Multiple studies conducted in pediatrics and gastroenterology have shown underrepresentation of women awardees even in fields with a higher proportion of women than men. To our knowledge, no such studies have been conducted in pediatric gastroenterology. We hypothesized that among all recipients, women would be underrepresented when compared to men and that women were more likely to be given teaching awards compared to other career achievement awards. We collected data on recipients of major recognition award presented by The North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition from 1987 to 2022. We found that 80.90% of the awards had been given to men and that most nominators were men. This study highlights inequities in women recipients for major awards and presents an opportunity for a call for action to examine and address the factors contributing to this gender inequity.

Gender Differences in Academic Rank, Leadership, and Awards Among NIH Grant Recipients in Diagnostic Radiology

Objective: Females have been traditionally underrepresented in academia across multiple medical specialties, including radiology. The present study investigated primary investigators (PIs) who received National Institutes of Health (NIH) radiology funding between 2016 and 2019 to establish if there was a correlation between NIH grants, gender, academic rank, first and second tier leadership positions, geographic location, and professional awards. Materials and Methods: Funding information was obtained from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditure and Results (RePORTER) website for 2016-2019. Information for each PI was obtained from academic institutional websites, LinkedIn, and Doximity. Mann-Whitney U tests and chi-square analyses were performed to compare and determine associations between gender and the stated variables of interest. Results: Of the 805 radiology PIs included in this study, 78% were male. There was a significant association of gender with the attainment of the highest academic rank (p = 0.026), with females occupied more of the assistant professor ranks (M:F = 1:1.5) and less of the professor ranks (F:M = 1:1.2). Between genders, there was no significant difference in first and second tier leadership positions (p = 0.497, p = 0.116), and postgraduate honors and awards (p = 0.149). The greatest proportion of grants was awarded in the setting of sole male PIs (55%) and the least proportion of grants were awarded when the contact PI and other project leader were female (1%). Conclusion: Despite having similar academic credentials, including number of leadership positions and postgraduate honors and awards, female radiology PIs who have received NIH grants continue to be underrepresented in higher academic ranks.

Health Disparities Research Curricula and Training Development: Recommendations From a National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Workgroup

The national mandate to improve health equity in the United Sates is advancing. Racial and ethnic disparities in various aspects of health care have been clearly delineated, and sources of such disparities have been identified. However, implementing solution-focused interventions to eradicate such disparities, thereby achieving health equity in all US communities, has remained a daunting challenge, and no area more so, than with neurologic diseases. To assure success with bridging prominent disparities in neurologic outcomes, the pipeline of neurologic disparities researchers needs to be broadened, numbers of mid-career and senior disparities scientists sustained, partnerships with community stakeholders enhanced, incentivization of academic organizations pursued, education of all neurologic researchers conducted, and exemplary training of funding agency staff prioritized. To improve the current state of neurologic disparities, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke assembled a working group of its advisory council. (2020-2022) to examine the state of health disparity training and research. Through consensus building, we present identified gaps and recommendations to the current state of underrepresented groups in medicine in health disparity research and its training and curricula in the United States.

Little transparency and equity in scientific awards for early- and mid-career researchers in ecology and evolution

Scientific awards can shape scientific careers, helping to secure jobs and grants, but can also contribute to the lack of diversity at senior levels and in the elite networks of scientists. To assess the status quo and historical trends, we evaluated 'best researcher' awards and 'best paper' early- and mid-career awards from broad-scope international journals and societies in ecology and evolution. Specifically, we collated information on eligibility rules, assessment criteria and potential gender bias. Our results reveal that, overall, few awards foster equitable access and assessment. Although many awards now explicitly allow extensions of the eligibility period for substantial career interruptions, there is a general lack of transparency in terms of assessment and consideration of other differences in access to opportunities and resources among junior researchers. Strikingly, open science practices were mentioned and valued in only one award. By highlighting instances of desirable award characteristics, we hope this work will nudge award committees to shift from simple but non-equitable award policies and practices towards strategies enhancing inclusivity and diversity. Such a shift would benefit not only those at the early- and mid-career stages but the whole research community. It is also an untapped opportunity to reward open science practices, promoting transparent and robust science.

Demographic Representation Among Speakers and Program Committee Members at the IDWeek Conference, 2013-2021

BACKGROUND

In 2016, the IDWeek program committee was charged with ensuring gender equity in speaker sessions. Whether this charge also resulted in more opportunities for historically underrepresented speakers is unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of trends in the demographic composition of IDWeek speakers and program committee members between 2013 and 2021. We used descriptive statistics to summarize data, χ2 tests to compare speaker demographics between 2013-2016 (before 2016) and 2017-2021 (after 2016), and Cochran-Armitage tests for trend. Each speaker slot was considered an independent event.

RESULTS

A total of 5482 speaker slots were filled by 3389 individuals from 2013 to 2021. There was a linear increase in female speakers from 38.6% in 2013 to 58.4% in 2021 (P < .001). The proportion of white speakers decreased overall from 84.9% in 2013 to 63.5% in 2021. Compared with white speakers, more slots were filled by Asian speakers after 2016 versus before 2016 (20.1% vs 14.8%, respectively; P < .001). Program committee members from 2013-2021 were >80% non-Hispanic white; <5% of committee members identified as black, American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, or Hispanic. More program committee slots were filled by women after 2016 than before 2016 (52.7% vs 33.9%; P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

Intentional consideration of gender equity by the program committee was associated with equitable gender representation of invited speakers at IDWeek after 2016. Gradually, the proportions of IDWeek speakers from historically excluded racial/ethnic approached their respective proportions in the IDSA membership. White speakers remained overrepresented relative to membership proportions until 2021, and gaps in program committee racial/ethnic demographic representation highlights opportunities for continued inclusion, diversity, access, and equity at IDWeek.

Gender Disparities and Differences Among Urologists Included in Top Doctor Lists

OBJECTIVE

To understand gender trends among urologists included in "Top Doctor" lists as more women practice urology, we (1) Evaluated whether Top Doctor lists reflect a contemporary distribution of urologists by gender; (2) Describe regional differences in gender composition of lists; (3) Report similarities and differences among men and women Top Doctors.

METHODS

All urologists in regional Top Doctor Castle Connolly lists published in magazines between January 1, 2020 and June 22, 2021 were included. Physician attributes were abstracted. American Urological Association (AUA) census data was used to compare the number of men and women Top Doctor urologists to the number of practicing men and women urologists within each list's zip codes. Log odds ratios (OR) and (95% confidence intervals) were used to compare likelihood of list inclusion by gender overall and by region.

RESULTS

Four hundred and ninety-four Top Doctor urologists from 25 lists were analyzed, of which 42 (8.50%) were women. Women urologists comprised 0%-27.8% of each list, with 7 lists (28.0%) including zero women urologists. Using AUA census data, OR for list inclusion of men urologists compared to women was 1.31 (1.01, 1.70) overall, with OR = 0.78 (0.36, 1.72) in the West, OR = 1.39 (1.03, 1.89) South, OR = 1.46 (0.8, 2.67) Northeast, OR = 1.90 (0.50, 7.18) Midwest. Women top urologists completed fellowship more often than men (66.7%, 55.1%) and were significantly more likely to complete female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (FPMRS) fellowship (P <.001).

CONCLUSION

Men urologists were significantly more likely to be included in Top Doctor lists than women urologists. Top women urologists were significantly more likely to complete FPMRS fellowship.

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.

Gender Representation Among Physician Authors of Practice Guidelines Developed, Endorsed, or Affirmed by the American Academy of Neurology

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

To assess American Academy of Neurology (AAN)-recommended Practice Guidelines (PGs) for equity in gender representation among physician authors.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included AAN-recommended PG publications from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2020. Author degrees and gender were identified by 2 reviewers using the publication and/or online searches. Gender was determined from pronouns or photographs. Gender representation was compared with Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) data on academic neurologists. Data were analyzed using Z tests of 2 proportions and descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

AAMC benchmarks report academic women neurologists represented 35% of the specialty in 2015, 38% in 2018, and 39% in 2020. We identified 68 unique PG publications with 709 physician authors, 31% (223) women, 68% (484) men, and 0.3% (2) gender could not be identified. Representation of women physicians was low among PG authors across all benchmarks, significantly so for 2018 and 2020 (p < 0.01). Among physician first authors, women were significantly underrepresented across all benchmarks (18% [12/65], p < 0.01). Representation of women physicians was lower when men physicians were first authors vs women physicians (31% [161/524] vs 43% [50/118], p = 0.02). Among subspecialties with 10+ PGs, women physician authorship was highest in child neurology (48% [57/120]) and lowest in stroke and vascular neurology (16% [18/113]).

DISCUSSION

We found that women physicians were underrepresented as authors of AAN-recommended PGs. This suggests a missed opportunity for neurology because PGs that include expertise from women physicians may improve care and translation into practice. In addition, women physicians lose out on professional development from authorship. Further research is needed to understand causality and address gaps.

Gender Disparities in the Career of Neurology Researchers

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

To assess gender disparities in neurology researcher careers in the United States.

METHODS

A 34-question survey was distributed to 4,644 US-based American Academy of Neurology members who self-identified as researchers in 2020 addressing the following domains: research and funding, scholarly activities, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) effect, and local institutional climate.

RESULTS

A total of 700 (15%) individuals completed the survey (women, n = 231; men, n = 426), with 71% White and >80% conducting research. Women respondents were significantly younger than men, more likely to be assistant professors (32% vs 21%), and less likely to be full professors (18% vs 39%). Compared with men, women received equivalent grants and research support and had comparable or additional formal research training and mentorship. Women had less middle author publications (mean 5.8 [SD 9.2] vs mean 8.2 [SD 11.8], p = 0.03) compared with men but similar first or last author publications (mean 4.3[5.4] vs 6.1 [9.8], p = 0.05). A lower proportion of women presented research at grand rounds or at a national/international conference compared with men (58% vs 69%, p = 0.01). Women spent more time in nonprofessional responsibilities, were less satisfied with their work-life balance, and were less likely to agree with statements addressing equity/diversity and institutional climate. Respondents shared their concerns regarding how the pandemic was affecting neurology research careers, with a higher proportion of women reporting that family responsibilities affected research activities and lead to delayed submission of non-COVID-19-related manuscripts.

DISCUSSION

Our survey of US-based neurology researchers demonstrated continued gender-based disparities in academic rank, manuscript authorship, and invited speaking engagements, although funding opportunities and access to additional training were equivalent. Women were less likely than men to agree that neurology departments support diversity and equity and that the institutional climate was inclusive and transparent. The pandemic had affected both genders in research, but areas were different for women related to family responsibilities. This article also highlights additional areas of research and areas for intervention to improve and reduce gender disparities among neurology researchers.

Gender and research productivity of award recipients among Canadian national ophthalmology and affiliate subspecialty societies

BACKGROUND

Although women remain historically underrepresented in medical achievement awards, gender distribution of award recipients in ophthalmology in Canada remain to be explored based on research productivity metrics.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the gender distribution of award recipients among the main Canadian national ophthalmological societies and subspecialty affiliates based on research productivity, graduate degrees, affiliated institution, and award type.

DESIGN

Retrospective, observational study.

METHODS

Award recipients were selected from the Canadian Ophthalmological Society (COS), Canadian Association of Paediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (CAPOS); Canadian Cornea, External Disease, and Refractive Surgery Society (CCEDRSS); Canadian Council of Ophthalmology Residents (CCOR) Research Proposal Award; and Canadian Glaucoma Society (CGS). The recipients' gender was determined by web search for the gender-specific pronoun, profile photograph check, or using Gender-API. Outcomes included gender distribution of recipients per award, society, year, and training level and differences in research productivity.

RESULTS

Thirteen special awards were given to 255 recipients (215 individuals) from 1995 to 2022. In total, 31% of recipients were women, the majority being from Canada. Women had a significantly lower median h-index (2.0 (0-62) women versus 4.0 (0-81) men, p = 0.001) and number of published documents (3.0 (0-213) women versus 8.0 (0-447) men, p < 0.001). On stratified analyses by type of award (research or lifetime achievement) and level of training (trainee or ophthalmologist), significant differences were found for mean h-index and number of publications for awardees within the research category (p = 0.01 and p = 0.02, respectively) and trainee level (p = 0.01 and p = 0.02, respectively). Overall, women's proportion rates in awards did not reach parity in 27 out of the 28 years analyzed.

CONCLUSION

Women were confirmed to be historically minored in proportion among the prominent society awards in Canada, with attested research disparity possibly explaining some of this bias. These findings require further confirmation in larger cohorts accounting for additional educational, institutional, and provincial factors.

REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

Can I Ask a Question About URiM Awards That I Don't Know the Answer to? Designing an Award for Underrepresented Medical Education Researchers

Meaningful Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) efforts may be stymied by concerns about whether proposed initiatives are performative or tokenistic. The purpose of this project was to analyze discussions by the Research in Medical Education (RIME) Program Planning committee about how best to recognize and support underrepresented in medicine (URiM) researchers in medical education to generate lessons learned that might inform local, national, and international actions to implement meaningful EDI initiatives. Ten RIME Program Planning Committee members and administrative staff participated in a focus group held virtually in August 2021. Focus group questions elicited opinions about "if and how" to establish a URiM research award. The focus group was recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. Recognition of privilege, including who has it and who doesn't, underpinned the focus group discussion, which revolved around 2 themes: (1) tensions between optics and semantics, and (2) potential unintended consequences of trying to level the medical education playing field. The overarching storyline threaded throughout the focus group discussion was intentionality. Focus group participants sought to avoid performativity by creating an award that would be meaningful to recipients and to career gatekeepers such as department chairs and promotion and tenure committees. Ultimately, participants decided to create an award that focused on exemplary Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) scholarship, which was eventually named the "RIME URiM Research Award." Difficult but productive conversations about EDI initiatives are necessary to advance underrepresented in medicine (URiM) scholarship. This transparent commentary may trigger further critical conversations.

Gender Differences Among Academic Radiation Oncology National Institutes of Health (NIH) Funding Recipients

Purpose

The purpose of our study was to evaluate National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding recipients between 2016 and 2019 to determine if there was an association between gender, research productivity, academic rank, leadership positions, and post-graduate awards.

Materials and Methods

The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditure and Results (RePORTER) website was used to retrieve data for grants in Radiation Oncology from 2016-2019. Demographics and profiles of awardees were retrieved from institutional websites, LinkedIn, and Doximity. Publication metrics were collected through the Scopus database. Mann-Whitney U tests and chi-square analyses were performed to compare and determine associations between gender and other variables. 

Results

Three hundred and forty radiation oncology principal investigators (PIs) were included in this study, of whom 76% were men. Of the 776 total NIH grants awarded, 62% of the grants had a sole male PI and 1% had two or more PIs in which the contact PI and co-PI were women. Between the genders of PIs in this sample, there was no significant difference in highest academic rank, leadership positions (i.e., chair, director, founder, president, and other), and post-graduate honors and awards. Total publications, years of active research, h-index, and m-index were higher amongst men in the professor category but were largely similar between genders in the associate and assistant professor categories.

Conclusions

The results demonstrate that most NIH grants in radiation oncology were awarded to men. Strategies that increase women in radiation oncology (RO), as well as those that increase NIH grants amongst women may also increase the prevalence of women in senior academic ranks and leadership positions.

Perceived barriers to career progression in the headache field: A global web-based cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

It is well recognized that underrepresented and minoritized groups do not have the same career opportunities. However, there are limited data on the range and specifics of potential barriers that withhold people in headache medicine and science from reaching their full potential. Moreover, people from different geographical regions often perceive different challenges. We aimed to identify world-wide perceived career barriers and possibilities for promoting equality amongst professionals in the headache fields.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among professionals in the field of headache globally. The questions of the survey were aimed at assessing perceived career barriers in four domains: professional recognition, opportunities in scientific societies, clinical practice, and salary and compensation. Perceived mentorship was also assessed.

RESULTS

In total 580 responders completed the survey (55.3% women). Gender was the most important perceived barrier in almost all domains. Additionally, country of birth emerged as an important barrier to participation in international scientific societies. Career barriers varied across world regions.

CONCLUSION

It is essential that longstanding and ongoing disparities by gender and country of origin for professionals in the headache field are globally acknowledged and addressed in areas of recruitment, retention, opportunities, mentor- and sponsorships, and advancement.

Recognition Awards in Pathology Specialty Societies

OBJECTIVES

Recognition awards build physician reputation and facilitate career advancement. We hypothesize women physicians are underrepresented as award recipients by pathology medical societies compared with representation in the specialty.

METHODS

We analyzed publicly available online information about physician recipients (January 2015 to December 2021) from three general pathology society websites. Recipient gender was determined by pronoun use, first name, and photograph. Representation was compared with Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) specialty data from 2015 and 2019, which showed a minimum of 36.7% women pathologists in 2015 and up to 43.4% in 2019.

RESULTS

Twenty-six awards and 230 physician recipients were included in the analysis. A total of 159 (69.1%) men physicians and 71 (30.9%) women physicians received awards. Overall, women physicians were underrepresented in recognition awards compared with AAMC benchmarks. Prestigious awards (defined as those that recognize a person's body of work over time) showed a similar disparity with 22 (30.1%) of 73 recipients being women. Men physicians were more likely to receive multiple awards.

CONCLUSIONS

Women physicians are underrepresented overall for recognition awards by pathology medical societies. Disparities are greater for prestigious awards. Further research is needed to better understand the reasons for these findings and how they affect women physicians' careers.

Gender Inequities in Transfusion Medicine Society Recognition Awards

Award recognition by medical societies contributes to professional development, career networking, and academic rank promotion. Previous research has demonstrated that men are the predominant recipients of medical society awards across multiple medical specialties; as such, we sought to understand whether women are underrepresented as award recipients amongst blood banking and transfusion medicine (BBTM) medical societies. We examined recipients of 10 total awards from the Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB) and the American Society for Apheresis. Additional evaluation of AABB's National Blood Foundation Hall of Fame inductees was conducted. Gender was determined via online review of pronouns, online photographs, and a web-based gender identification application. Award recipient gender was analyzed and coded independently by two authors, and any discrepancies were adjudicated by author consensus. Of the 330 AABB awards since 1954, significantly more have been conferred to men (81.5%, 269/330; P < .001). Of the 51 American Society for Apheresis awards presented since 1993, 64.7% (33/51; P = .23) have been conferred to men. Compared to the first 10 years of the AABB awards (1954-1964), there has been a significant increase in the proportion of women award recipients in the most recent decade (2010-2021) (18.5%, 5/27 vs 29.4%, 30/102; P < .001). However, additional temporal analysis of the modern era (2000-2021) revealed men have received significantly more AABB awards than women (77.4%, 144/186 vs 22.6%, 42/186; P < .001). Our findings highlight both historic and contemporary inequity for recognition of women within BBTM. Without improvement, gender parity among BBTM award recipients will take approximately 120 years (11% increase in women awardees in 60 years); thus, to ensure the BBTM field continues to progress, we must advocate for equity among all members, including but not limited to gender, race, and ethnicity. Strategies to enhance equity include transparency in the identities of award nominees, award recipients, and individuals on selection committees, the gender ratios of both award nominees and recipients, and implementation of methods for tracking individual demographics over time. These strategies would permit temporal analysis of the ratio of award nominee gender to award recipient gender, and assessment as to whether potential gender inequities improve over time.

Assessment of Gender Parity: Leadership Representation in Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine

Background: Academic centers' and professional societies' top leadership representation and professional societies' award recipients remain disparate by gender in many fields. Little is known regarding leadership representation and recognition within pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine (PCCM), which has ∼22% women physicians. We sought to understand the landscape of female PCCM leaders. Methods: We abstracted gender of fellowship program directors (PDs), Department of Medicine (DOM) Chairs and Division Chiefs from academic medical centers with PCCM fellowship programs from 2018 and for comparison 2008. We abstracted leadership and recognition award recipients within four PCCM professional societies from 2013 to 2018 (American Thoracic Society [ATS], American Academy of Sleep Medicine [AASM], American College of Chest Physicians [CHEST], and Society of Critical Care Medicine [SCCM]). Results: In 2018, 29% of PCCM PD, 15% of PCCM Division Chiefs, and 15% of DOM Chairs were women. There were significantly more female PDs in 2018 (29%) compared with 2008 (16%, p = 0.04). On average, 25% of society presidents were women, with 28% of PCCM societal awards going to women, with significant difference between societies (p = 0.04). Each society differed in average distribution of female board members over the 6-year period: ATS 38%, AASM 35%, CHEST 18%, and SCCM 44% (p < 0.001). Conclusion: PCCM leadership and societal recognition are disparate by gender with few women holding top leadership roles and receiving societal recognition. Fortunately, the distribution notably is starting to reflect the specialty's demographics. Understanding why these inequalities exist will be essential to achieving gender parity in PCCM.

Gender Discrepancies in Neurologist Compensation

ObjectivePrevious studies have shown gender disparities in physician pay in various specialties. This retrospective, cross-sectional study evaluated data from the AAN Compensation and Productivity Survey for differences in neurologist compensation by gender.MethodsOf the 3268 completed surveys submitted, 2719 were from neurologists and 1466 had sufficient data for analysis (551 women, 951 men respondents). We calculated an hourly wage from full time equivalent (FTE) status and weeks worked per year. We evaluated differences in men and women neurologist compensation with multivariable generalized linear models adjusting for race, ethnicity, geographic region, practice setting, years in practice, call status, leadership role, and subspecialty.ResultsBaseline characteristics for men and women neurologists were similar with the exception of subspecialty distribution. More men were practicing in higher-wage subspecialties compared to women (p < 0.05). Mean FTE equivalent annual salary for all neurologists was $280,315 and mean standardized hourly compensation was $131. Estimated annual salary for women was 10.7% less (p ≤ 0.001, 95% CI -4% - 16%), after controlling for race, region, years of practice, practice setting, call status, leadership role and subspecialty-wage category. FTE equivalent annual salary for women neurologists in high compensation specialties ($281,838) was lower than both the mean annual salary for men neurologists in high compensation ($365,751) and low compensation subspecialties ($282,813). When broken down by years of practice, the highest earning women neurologists' mean hourly wage (11 - 20 years of practice, $128/hour) was less than all men neurologists except those with 0 - 5 years of practice ($125/hour).ConclusionThis study, using convenience sample data, adds to the existing body of evidence demonstrating that, despite adjustment for multiple confounding variables, ongoing disparities exist in physician compensation. Despite efforts by professional societies such as the AAN, ongoing systemic issues and barriers exist. Further research into underlying causes and mitigation strategies is recommended; use of probability sampling methods in future research will be important to decrease potential bias and increase generalizability.

Influential Women in the Field of Neurological Rehabilitation: A Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Medicine requires the brightest minds, regardless of gender. Women working in the health sciences have time and again demonstrated the value of their technical training, communication skills, emotional support, and ability to provide understandable explanations to their patients. The objective of this work was to carry out a historical review of the main female authors linked to classic sensorimotor neurorehabilitation techniques throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, as well as female authors linked to eponymous tests or assessments, exposing their scientific trajectory and main contributions to the field of neurological rehabilitation. A literature review was conducted. The databases of Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Scopus, CINAHL Medical Science, Medline through EBSCO and PubMed were used to obtain the biographical information of each author, searches of papers were limited until August 2021 in English and Spanish languages. Seventeen female authors were identified who linked to the main rehabilitation techniques or approaches described for neurological rehabilitation and for scales or tests with an eponymous origin as an example of female contribution on neurorehabilitation. Biographical information based on the computerized search in the electronic databases showed 57 potentially relevant articles. Of those articles, 43 were subsequently excluded. Fourteen articles were used to show their contribution to neurorehabilitation. This paper demonstrates the influential role of women in the history of sensorimotor neurorehabilitation throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, linked to the methods, techniques, concepts, or approaches used in physical therapy or occupational therapy.

Assessing the recognition of female orthopaedic surgeons in Castle Connolly's "America's Top Doctors" from 2000 to 2020

BACKGROUND

The field of orthopaedic surgery has one of the lowest percentages of practicing female physicians. Studies have shown disparities in various academic societies' award recipients by sex. Given the recent increased use of physician rating platforms by patients and focus on consumer-driven healthcare, our aim was to assess the recognition of female orthopaedic surgeons.

METHODS

A twenty-year quantitative analysis was performed comparing the rate of top female orthopaedic surgeons listed on Castle Connolly's "America's Top Doctors" to the percentage of practicing female orthopaedic surgeons as reported by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

RESULTS

From 2000 to 2020, there was a statistically significant increase in the percentage of top female orthopaedic surgeons listed on Castle Connolly (1.3%-5.3%), as well as an increase in overall practicing AAOS female members (2.7%-5.8%). When comparing the rate of top female orthopaedic surgeons listed on Castle Connolly to the proportion of practicing female AAOS members from 2000 to 2020, there were no statistically significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

The increase in the rate of top female orthopaedic surgeons recognized by Castle Connolly was proportionate to the increase in percentage of practicing female AAOS members over the past 20 years. This study highlights the persistence of a gender discrepancy in the academic sector of orthopaedic surgery.

The gender gap in highly prestigious international research awards, 2001–2020

This study examines gender disparities in the world’s 141 most prestigious international research awards. I find that (a) from 2001 to 2020 these awards were received 3,445 times by 2,011 men and 262 women; (b) women’s share increased from an annual average of 6% during 2001–2005 to an annual average of 19% during 2016–2020; (c) 49 of the 141 awards were not received by women during 2016–2020; and (d) when the numbers of female full professors are taken into consideration, the gender gap remains highly disproportionate in biological and life sciences, computer science, and mathematics. Overall, women would be expected to increase their share of awards by nearly 50% to achieve parity with men today. The study shows great similarities between men and women award recipients in journal articles per author, the average number of authors per article, the proportion of articles in top journals, citations per article, and participation in large research groups and international collaborations. I conclude that the gender gap in highly prestigious research awards is largely a result of demographic inertia and other factors that deserve further investigation.

Gender of Award Recipients in Major Ophthalmology Societies

PURPOSE

To assess the gender distribution of major ophthalmology society award recipients DESIGN: Retrospective, observational study METHODS: The study population included award recipients from 9 ophthalmologic societies: American Academy of Ophthalmology, American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, American Glaucoma Society, American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS), American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, American Society of Retina Specialists, American Uveitis Society, Cornea Society, and North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society. A gender-specific pronoun and a photograph of each award recipient were extracted from professional websites to assign their gender. Main outcome measures were gender distribution by award society, year (1970-2020), type (lectureship or not), category (achievement, education, research contribution, research item, international member achievement, public service-global health, service to society), and training level.

RESULTS

Out of 2,150 recipients for 78 awards, 1,606 (74.7%) were men and 544 (25.3%) were women. The proportion of women recipients increased from 0% in 1970 to 33.2% in 2020 (P < .001). Women representation varied within each society (P < .01), with ASCRS having the highest percentage (40.8%). Women received 11.0% of awards accompanied by a lecture. Women received a significantly greater proportion of research-related awards than achievement or service awards. Awards for trainees and early-career ophthalmologists had a greater proportion of women (39.8%) than the rest of the awards (21.5%) (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, women received awards (25.3%) at a higher rate than the average 1970-2020 American gender distributions of ophthalmologists. However, women are still under-represented in many award categories and subspecialties.

Multiple sclerosis diagnosis: Knowledge gaps and opportunities for educational intervention in neurologists in the United States

Background:

Few studies have addressed the results of educational efforts concerning proper use of McDonald criteria (MC) revisions outside multiple sclerosis (MS) subspecialty centers. Neurology residents and MS subspecialist neurologists demonstrated knowledge gaps for core elements of the MC in a recent prior study.

Objective:

To assess comprehension and application of MC core elements by non-MS specialist neurologists in the United States who routinely diagnose MS.

Methods:

Through a cross-sectional study design, a previously developed survey instrument was distributed online.

Results:

A total of 222 neurologists completed the study survey. Syndromes atypical for MS were frequently incorrectly considered “typical” MS presentations. Fourteen percent correctly identified definitions of both “periventricular” and “juxtacortical” lesions and 2% correctly applied these terms to 9/9 images. Twenty-four percent correctly identified all four central nervous system (CNS) regions for satisfaction of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) dissemination in space. In two presented cases, 61% and 71% correctly identified dissemination in time (DIT) was not fulfilled, and 85% and 86% subsequently accepted nonspecific historical symptoms without objective evidence for DIT fulfillment.

Conclusion:

The high rate of knowledge deficiencies and application errors of core elements of the MC demonstrated by participants in this study raise pressing questions concerning adequacy of dissemination and educational efforts upon publication of revisions to MC.

Representation by Gender of Recognition Award Recipients from Gastroenterology and Hepatology Professional Societies

Background: Recognition awards from professional medical societies play an important role in physicians' career advancement. Our aim was to evaluate the gender representation of award recipients from gastroenterology and hepatology societies. Methods: We analyzed the lists of award recipients from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, American College of Gastroenterology, American Gastroenterological Association, and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and determined the gender of these award recipients. The primary outcome was the overall representation of women physician award recipients as compared with the representation of women in the specialty. Results: Between 1941 and 2019, there were 921 awards, of which 77 (8.4%) were given to women and 844 (91.6%) to men. There was a significant increase in the proportion of women recipients over time, from 0% in 1970-1984 to 22.0% in 2015-2019 (p for trend <0.0001). Compared with the concurrent representation of women in the specialty, women physician recipients were underrepresented from 1970 to 1981 and 1984 to 2015, equitably represented from 1981 to 1984, and overrepresented from 2015 to 2019. Of the total number of awards in each category, women received 13.8% of teaching/mentorship awards and 3.8% of the highest achievement awards (p = 0.002). The proportion of women recipients varied among the societies, from 6.8% to 14.5%. Conclusions: The representation of women physician recipients of gastroenterology and hepatology society recognition awards has generally been low until most recently, when it has surpassed the proportion of women in the specialty. Because award recognition is important to career development, professional societies should have transparent processes that aim to identify and reduce various forms of bias, including gender-related bias, in all phases of award recognition.

National Awards and Female Emergency Physicians in the United States: Is the "Recognition Gap" Closing?

BACKGROUND

Gender inequities in recognition, compensation, promotion, and leadership roles exist in emergency medicine. Formal recognition in the workplace and opportunities for advancement are vulnerable to bias.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the gender distribution of national awards in emergency medicine, to analyze whether there is a gap, and to highlight notable trends.

METHODS

Recipients of the major award categories between 2001 and 2020 were examined for the 3 main national emergency medicine organizations. The gender distribution of award winners by year was compared with the gender distribution of female faculty in emergency medicine departments using data from the Association of American Medical Colleges and a chi-squared analysis.

RESULTS

The gender gap in award winners has decreased over time, but men are still disproportionately given national awards over women. In all 3 organizations, women represented a smaller proportion of award winners than men when compared with the national proportion of women in academic emergency medicine. Advocacy awards were the one category where women were more likely to be recognized. Women were notably least likely to receive clinical and leadership awards.

CONCLUSIONS

The gender gap in emergency medicine awards has narrowed in the last 20 years but still exists. This discrepancy is an example of how bias can compound over time to generate gaps in recognition, career advancement, and promotion. The pipeline to award nominations should be addressed at the individual, departmental, awards committee, and organizational levels. © 2021 Elsevier Inc.

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.

Speaker Introductions at Grand Rounds: Differences in Formality of Address by Gender and Specialty

Background: Despite increasing representation of women in medicine, gender bias remains pervasive. The authors sought to evaluate speaker introductions by gender in the grand rounds of multiple specialties at a large academic institution to understand the cultural context of this behavior and identify predictors of formality. Materials and Methods: The authors reviewed grand rounds recordings of speakers with doctorates presenting to the departments of family medicine, general surgery, internal medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, and pediatrics at one institution from 2014 to 2019. The primary outcome was whether a speaker's professional title was used as the first form of address. The authors assessed factors correlated with professional introduction using multivariable logistic regression. Results: Speakers were introduced professionally in 346/615 recordings (56.3%). Female introducers were more likely to introduce speakers professionally (odds ratio [OR]: 2.52). A significant interaction existed between speaker gender and home institution: female speakers visiting from an external institution were less likely than male external speakers to be introduced professionally (OR: 0.49), whereas female speakers internal to the institution were more likely to be introduced professionally than male internal speakers (OR: 1.75). Use of professional titles varied by specialty and was higher than average for family medicine (83.2%), surgery (75.8%), and pediatrics (64.0%) and lower for internal medicine (37.5%) and obstetrics and gynecology (50.7%). Conclusions: These findings suggest a complex relationship between gender and formality of introduction that merits further investigation. Understanding differences in culture across specialties is important to inform efforts to promote equity.

Women are underrepresented in prestigious recognition awards in the American Urological Association

OBJECTIVES

To determine the proportion of women who received awards from the American Urological Association (AUA) and evaluate whether this has changed over time as the proportion of practicing female urologists has increased.

METHODS

A retrospective review of award recipients from the AUA website was performed. Gender of award recipient, type of award and year received were collected and the trend over time was compared with the AUA census.

RESULTS

Of the 622 award recipients, 43 (6.9%) were women. There was a larger proportion of women who received early career awards (15/65; 23.1%) compared to women who received more prestigious mid (1/44; 2.3%) or senior (27/513; 5.3%) career awards. Additionally, 17/43 (39.5%) of female award recipients were not clinical urologists, compared to only 33/579 (5.7%) of male award recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite increased representation by women in the field of urology, women remain underrepresented in awards given by the AUA. Although the proportion of women receiving awards over time has increased, it remains less than expected given the increased proportion of practicing female urologists. Strategic initiatives should be employed to help advance women in academic urology.

Current Status and Future Strategies for Mentoring Women in Neurology

The American Academy of Neurology's (AAN) 2017 Gender Disparity Report identified improving mentorship as a key intervention to fill the leadership and pay gaps for women in neurology. Here we summarize the literature on mentoring women, provide an outline of ideal components of programs geared toward closing gender gaps, and present a mentoring program for AAN members. The strategies discussed share similarities with those for closing gaps related to race, ethnicity, and religion. Developing effective mentorship and sponsorship programs is essential to ensure a sufficiently diverse pool of academic faculty and private practitioners and to establish equal representation in leadership roles in this field.

Women are underrepresented in major US sleep societies recognition awards

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To investigate gender distribution of US sleep professionals who received major recognition awards over a forty-year period from the two national sleep societies: the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) and the Sleep Research Society (SRS).

METHODS

We reviewed and analyzed the publicly available lists of sleep recognition awards recipients from the AASM and the SRS websites. The primary outcome measures were the overall proportion of individual sleep recognition awards given to US men and women sleep professionals and the trend over time (1981-2020) analyzed by decade using the Cochran-Armitage test.

RESULTS

Seven major sleep recognition awards (four by the AASM; three by the SRS) were identified over 40 years. There were overall 164 individual sleep recognition awards presented by the two sleep societies to US sleep professionals, including 136 (82.9%) awarded for men and only 28 (17.1%) awarded for women. The analysis of the sleep recognition awards over time by decade revealed a significant increasing trend (p < 0.0001) in the proportion of awards recognizing women relative to men with a progression from 0.0% in the 1980s, to 3.4% in the 1990s, to 13.1% in the 2000s, and to 31.7% in the 2010s.

CONCLUSIONS

US women sleep professionals were historically underrepresented in major sleep recognition awards, with a reduction in the gender gap in the last ten years. The reasons behind gender inequality in sleep recognition awards remain unclear and deserve further investigation.