Race and Gender Shift among Academic Glaucoma Specialists in the Last 5 Decades

Patterns and Disparities in Recorded Gonioscopy During Initial Glaucoma Evaluations in the United States

PURPOSE

To assess patterns in gonioscopy during initial glaucoma evaluations in the United States.

DESIGN

Retrospective, case-control study.

METHODS

Patients undergoing initial glaucoma evaluation between 2009-2020 were identified in the Optum Clinformatics DataMart. Initial evaluation was defined as follows: (1) glaucoma suspect, anatomical narrow angle (ANA), or primary/secondary glaucoma diagnosed by an ophthalmologist; (2) continuously observable during a 36-month lookback period; (3) no history of glaucoma medications, laser, or surgical procedures; and (4) optical coherence tomography (OCT) or visual field performed within 6 months of initial diagnosis. Logistic regression models were developed to identify factors associated with no record of gonioscopy based on Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes.

RESULTS

Among 198,995 patients, 20.4% and 29.5% had recorded gonioscopy on the day of diagnosis or within 6 months, respectively. On multivariable analysis, odds of recorded gonioscopy within 6 months of initial evaluation was lower (P < .001) among non-Hispanic Whites (OR=0.84) but similar for Blacks (OR=1.02) and Hispanics (OR=0.96) compared with Asians. Age ≥60 years (OR<0.82), pseudophakia/aphakia (OR=0.58), or residence outside of the Northeast region (OR=0.66-0.84) conferred lower odds of recorded gonioscopy (P < .001). Angle closure glaucoma (OR=0.85), secondary glaucoma (OR=0.31), or open angle glaucoma/suspect (OR=0.12/0.24, respectively) patients were less likely to have recorded gonioscopy compared to ANA patients (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

More than 70% patients undergoing initial glaucoma evaluation in the United States do not have a record of gonioscopy, especially elderly, non-Hispanic White, and pseudophakic patients in non-Northeast regions. This pattern does not conform to current practice guidelines and could contribute to misdiagnosed disease and suboptimal outcomes.

Primary Practice Emphasis Area and Diversity Among Board-Certified Ophthalmologists

PURPOSE

To describe the ophthalmology primary practice emphasis area by underrepresented in medicine (URiM) status using the American Board of Ophthalmology (ABO) Diplomates database.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

The study was based on a retrospective review of the ABO database from 1992 to 2020. The datapoints recorded included age at time of graduation and at time of certification, sex/gender, self-reported race/ethnicity, year of graduation and of certification, region of practice in the United States, and the self-reported primary practice emphasis area within ophthalmology. The URiM cohort included self-identified Black, Hispanic/Latinx, American Indian and Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander individuals. Statistical analysis was conducted using Pearson χ2, Student t, and Fisher exact tests.

RESULTS

A total of 575 (10.1%) ophthalmologists self-identified as URiM, vs 5132 (89.9%) as non-URiM. Diplomates who were URiM were more likely to be female and to be older at the time of ABO certification than those who were not URiM (P < .001). Over time, there was a steady decrease in the percentage of diplomates who were URiM (P < .001). There was a statistically significantly higher percentage of URiM ophthalmologists who reported glaucoma as their primary area of emphasis (P = .039) and non-URiM ophthalmologists who reported oncology, pathology, international, or genetics (P = .015), but no significant differences in the remaining subspecialties (P ≥ .123).

CONCLUSIONS

There were modest differences in reported ophthalmology primary practice emphasis areas between URiM and non-URiM ABO diplomates. Despite efforts to increase diversity in ophthalmology, the percentage of graduating URiM ABO diplomates has decreased over the past 2 decades.