Gender bias in academic medicine: a resume study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Minimising the effects of unconscious bias in selection for clinical academic training is essential to ensure that allocation of training posts is based on merit. We looked at the effect of anonymising applications to a training programme for junior doctors on the scores of the applications and on gender balance; and whether female candidates were more likely to seek gender-concordant mentors.Methods
Applications to the training programme were reviewed and scored independently by reviewers who received either an anonymised or named copy. Scores were compared using a paired t-test, and differences in scores compared by gender. The gender of named supervisors for male and female candidates was compared.Results
Scores of 101 applications were reviewed. When their identity was known, male candidates scored 1.72% higher and female candidates scored 0.74% higher, but these findings were not statistically significant (p value = 0.279 and 0.579). Following introduction of anonymisation, the proportion of successful female candidates increased from 27 to 46%. Female candidates were more likely to name a female supervisor compared to male (41% vs. 25% of supervisors).Conclusions
Anonymising applications did not significantly change scores, although gender balance improved. Gender-concordant mentoring initiatives should consider effects on mentors as well as mentees.
SUBMITTER: Burke E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10152728 | biostudies-literature | 2023 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Gender bias in academic medicine: a resumé study.
Burke Elaine E Heron Elizabeth A EA Hennessy Martina M
BMC medical education 20230501 1
<h4>Background</h4>Minimising the effects of unconscious bias in selection for clinical academic training is essential to ensure that allocation of training posts is based on merit. We looked at the effect of anonymising applications to a training programme for junior doctors on the scores of the applications and on gender balance; and whether female candidates were more likely to seek gender-concordant mentors.<h4>Methods</h4>Applications to the training programme were reviewed and scored indep ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportancePoor retention may be associated with lack of faculty diversity in academic medicine.ObjectiveTo examine differences in faculty retention by gender, degree type, and race and ethnicity using data from US medical schools.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study analyzed data from 155 medical schools for 1978 to 2021, which were obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges. Retention rates were calculated by gender, race and ethnicity, and degree type. Time to attrition was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine the differences in retention by gender and race. Data were analyzed from March 2021 to November 2022.Main outcomes and measuresThe duration of continuous employment in academic medicine and variations in retention based on gender, race, ethnicity, and terminal degree.ResultsAmong 390 766 faculty members (232 829 [59.6%] men; 1190 American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander [0.3%]; 72 490 Asian [18.6%]; 14 920 Black [3.8%]; 20 345 Hispanic, Latino, of Spanish origin, or multirace Hispanic [5.2%]; 251 670 non-Hispanic White [64.4%] participants; and 30 151 [7.7%] other race), 259 628 (66.4%) had MD or MD-equivalent terminal degrees. Women left academic medicine a median of 1 year earlier (median retention, 8.33 years; 95% CI, 8.18-8.41 years) than men (median retention, 9.35 years; 95% CI, 9.25-9.42 years). Compared with White faculty (median retention, 9.91 years; 95% CI, 9.83-9.92 years), multiracial and faculty of other races had the lowest retention (median retention, 5.42 years; 95% CI, 5.33-5.55 years), followed by Alaska Native, American Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (median retention, 6.00 years; 95% CI, 5.62-6.62 years), Black (median retention, 7.78 years; 95% CI, 7.50-8.00 years), Asian (median retention, 8.00 years; 95% CI, 8.00-8.11 years) and Hispanic faculty (median retention, 9.00 years; 95% CI, 8.75-9.16 years). Women faculty in the 1970s were 20% more likely than men to leave academia, whereas women in the 2010s had no greater risk of leaving, mainly due to a decline in retention of men.Conclusions and relevanceGender differences in faculty retention have decreased in the most recent decade; however, men had lower retention compared with earlier cohorts. In this study, faculty who were underrepresented in medicine left academic medicine a median of 1 to 4 years earlier than White faculty. Greater attrition among men and women for recent cohorts suggests that enhanced retention efforts are imperative to maintain an experienced and diverse faculty.
| S-EPMC11565262 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceGender-based disparities in compensation in academic medicine are recognized, but their estimated impacts on early career earning potential and strategies to mitigate them have not been well studied.ObjectivesTo compare earning potential between female and male academic physicians in the first 10 years of posttraining employment and to evaluate the estimated impact of promotion timing, starting salary, and salary growth rate on earning potential.Design, setting, and participantsUsing publicly available mean debt and compensation data for full-time employed academic physicians in the US from 2019 to 2020, starting salary, salary in year 10 of employment, annual salary growth rate, and overall earning potential in the first 10 years of employment were estimated for each gender by subspecialty. The estimated impacts of promotion timing and potential interventions, including equalizing starting salaries and annual salary growth rates, were modeled. Data analysis was performed from March to May 2021.ExposuresGender and subspecialty.Main outcomes and measuresStarting salary, annual salary growth rate, year-10 salary, and earning potential in first 10 years of employment.ResultsThis cross-sectional study included compensation data from 24 593 female and 29 886 male academic physicians across 45 subspecialties. Women had lower starting salaries in 42 of 45 subspecialties (93%), year-10 salaries in 43 of 45 subspecialties (96%), mean annual salary growth rates in 22 of 45 subspecialties (49%), and earning potential in 43 of 45 subspecialties (96%) (median [IQR], $214 440 [$130 423-$384 954], or 10%, less). A 1-year delay in promotion from assistant to associate professor reduced women's earning potential by a median (IQR) of $26 042 ($19 672-$35 671), but failure to be promoted at all reduced it by a median (IQR) of $218 724 ($176 317-$284 466). Equalizing starting salaries could increase women's earning potential by a median (IQR) of $250 075 ($161 299-$381 799) in the subspecialties for which starting salaries for women were lower than those for men. Equalizing annual salary growth rates could increase women's earning potential by a median (IQR) of $53 661 ($24 258-$102 892) in the subspecialties for which mean annual salary growth rates were lower for women than for men.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this study suggest that gender-based disparities in starting salary and early career earning potential are pervasive in academic medicine in the US. Equalizing starting salaries would address the majority of the differences in earning potential.
| S-EPMC8857688 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGender-related disparities persist in medicine and medical education. Prior work has found differences in medical education assessments based on gender.ObjectiveWe hypothesized that gender bias would be mitigated in a simulation-based assessment.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of emergency medicine residents at a single, urban residency program. Beginning in spring 2013, residents participated in mandatory individual simulation assessments. Twelve simulated cases were included in this study. Rating forms mapped milestone language to specific observable behaviors. A Bayesian regression was used to evaluate the effect of resident and rater gender on assessment scores. Both 95% credible intervals (CrIs) and a Region of Practical Equivalence approach were used to evaluate the results.ResultsParticipants included 48 faculty raters (25 men [52%]) and 102 residents (47 men [46%]). The difference in scores between male and female residents (M = -0.58, 95% CrI -3.31-2.11), and male and female raters (M = 2.87, 95% CrI -0.43-6.30) was small and 95% CrIs overlapped with 0. The 95% CrI for the interaction between resident and rater gender also overlapped with 0 (M = 0.41, 95% CrI -3.71-4.23).ConclusionsIn a scripted and controlled system of assessments, there were no differences in scores due to resident or rater gender.
| S-EPMC6108359 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe connection between academic career advancement and publishing research articles is important, as it can impact promotion and compensation decisions. Gender bias in academic publishing is a known issue, with studies showing low numbers in key roles in female representation. This article aims to analyze the ratio of women to men as first and last authors in the Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine (RAPM) journal and explore other factors such as the mentorship effect and representation in regional anesthesia associations.Main bodyWe examined the RAPM articles from 1976 to 2023 evaluating the gender of first and last authors. We analyzed the trend over the years and also analyze the subset of original articles. A further analysis was conducted to analyze the relationship between the first and last author's gender. Additionally, regional anesthesia societies were contacted to gather data on the gender of their members. We included 5650 articles; most of them were first authored by men (72.9-87.7%). There was a positive trend over time for female first authorship but not for last authorship. The analysis also revealed a mentorship effect in recent years for both overall articles and the subgroup of original articles. The representation of women within regional anesthesia societies contrasted with the representation of women as last authors in original articles.ConclusionsOur findings raise important questions about gender bias in academic publishing highlighting the need for increased representation and opportunities for women in the field of regional anesthesia.
| S-EPMC10702064 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStudies of gender inequities in academic medicine suggest the negative impact of men's networking practices, but little is known about how they shape faculty experiences.MethodsIn this qualitative study, in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 52 women and 52 men academic medicine faculty members at 16 institutions across the US in 2019. Interviews explored participants' experiences and perceptions of gender inequities in academic medicine, including perceptions of men's networking practices. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, and transcripts were analyzed using a mixture of deductively and inductively generated codes.FindingsQualitative analysis of interview transcripts identified different dominant themes: (1) Women were often excluded from networking activities dominated by men, (2) Both women and men referred to men's networking practices in academic medicine, and believed they conferred benefits to members and excluded non-members from such benefits, (3) Participation in such networking activities yielded professional advantages, (4) Women made efforts to counteract their exclusion yet identified limits of those efforts.InterpretationThe data suggests that gender inequities in academic medicine might be associated with professional interactions that occur outside of the scope of professional work practices and in formal work sites. Additional research is needed to better understand practices such as informal networking activities and their impact in order to promote gender equity.
| S-EPMC8921538 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGender inequities are documented in academic medicine. Within General Internal Medicine (GIM), there are fewer female division directors and first and last authors on publications. With gender parity in US medical school graduates and with Academic Hospital (AH) medicine being a relatively newer discipline, one might postulate that AH would have less gender inequity.DesignA national survey of AH programs was developed via literature review and expert recommendations. Domains included program and faculty information. Gender of the leader was determined via website or telephone call.ParticipantsLeaders of AH programs associated with the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC). Programs without a primary teaching hospital or hospitalist program and those not staffed by university-affiliated physicians were excluded.Main measuresDescription and characteristics of leaders and programs including a multivariable analysis of gender of hospitalist leaders and the portion of female faculty.Key results59% response rate (80 of 135); there were no differences between responders/non-responders in NIH funding (p = 0.12), type of institution (p = 0.09), geographic region (p = 0.15), or year established (p = 0.86). Reported number of female and male faculty were approximately equal. 80% of hospitalist leaders were male; 37% of male hospitalist leaders were professors, no female leaders were professors. In univariate and multivariate analysis only the number of hospitals staffed was a significant predictor of having a female hospitalist leader. There were no significant predictors of having fewer female faculty.ConclusionThis study demonstrated gender inequality in academic hospital medicine regarding leadership and rank. Though there was equal gender distribution of faculty, among leaders most were men and all "full professors" were men. As diversity benefits the tripartite mission research on methods, initiatives and programs that achieve gender equity in leadership are needed.
| S-EPMC7280439 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionLeadership positions occupied by women within academic emergency medicine have remained stagnant despite increasing numbers of women with faculty appointments. We distributed a multi-institutional survey to women faculty and residents to evaluate categorical characteristics contributing to success and differences between the two groups.MethodsAn institutional review board-approved electronic survey was distributed to women faculty and residents at eight institutions and were completed anonymously. We created survey questions to assess multiple categories: determination; resiliency; career support and obstacles; career aspiration; and gender discrimination. Most questions used a Likert five-point scale. Responses for each question and category were averaged and deemed significant if the average was greater than or equal to 4 in the affirmative, or less than or equal to 2 in the negative. We calculated proportions for binary questions.ResultsThe overall response rate was 55.23% (95/172). The faculty response rate was 54.1% (59/109) and residents' response rate was 57.1% (36/63). Significant levels of resiliency were reported, with a mean score of 4.02. Childbearing and rearing were not significant barriers overall but were more commonly reported as barriers for faculty over residents (P <0.001). Obstacles reported included a lack of confidence during work-related negotiations and insufficient research experience. Notably, 68.4% (65/95) of respondents experienced gender discrimination and 9.5% (9/95) reported at least one encounter of sexual assault by a colleague or supervisor during their career.ConclusionTargeted interventions to promote female leadership in academic emergency medicine include coaching on negotiation skills, improved resources and mentorship to support research, and enforcement of safe work environments. Female emergency physician resiliency is high and not a barrier to career advancement.
| S-EPMC8597699 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhile program director (PD) letters of recommendation (LOR) are subject to bias, especially against those underrepresented in medicine, these letters are one of the most important factors in fellowship selection. Bias manifests in LOR in a number of ways, including biased use of agentic and communal terms, doubt raising language, and description of career trajectory. To reduce bias, specialty organizations have recommended standardized PD LOR.ObjectiveThis study examined PD LOR for applicants to a cardiology fellowship program to determine the mechanism of how bias is expressed and whether the 2017 Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine (AAIM) guidelines reduce bias.MethodsFifty-six LOR from applicants selected to interview at a cardiology fellowship during the 2019 and 2020 application cycles were selected using convenience sampling. LOR for underrepresented (Black, Latinx, women) and non-underrepresented applicants were analyzed using directed qualitative content analysis. Two coders used an iteratively refined codebook to code the transcripts. Data were analyzed using outputs from these codes, analytical memos were maintained, and themes summarized.ResultsWith AAIM guidelines, there appeared to be reduced use of communal language for underrepresented applicants, which may represent less bias. However, in both LOR adherent and not adherent to the guidelines, underrepresented applicants were still more likely to be described using communal language, doubt raising language, and career trajectory bias.ConclusionsPDs used language in a biased way to describe underrepresented applicants in LOR. The AAIM guidelines reduced but did not eliminate this bias. We provide recommendations to PDs and the AAIM on how to continue to work to reduce this bias.
| S-EPMC8207902 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMentoring is frequently suggested as an intervention to address gender inequalities in the workplace.ObjectivesTo systematically review evidence published since a definitive review in 2006 on the effectiveness of mentoring interventions aimed at achieving gender equality in academic medicine.DesignSystematic Review, using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication as a template for data extraction and synthesis.SampleStudies were included if they described a specific mentoring intervention in a medical school or analogous academic healthcare organisation and included results from an evaluation of the intervention.Eligibility criteriaMentoring was defined as (1) a formally organised intervention entailing a supportive relationship between a mentor, defined as a more senior/experienced person and a mentee defined as a more junior/inexperienced person; (2) mentoring intervention involved academic career support (3) the mentoring relationship was outside line management or supervision of performance and was defined by contact over an extended period of time.OutcomesThe impact of mentoring was usually reported at the level of individual participants, for example, satisfaction and well-being or self-reported career progression. We sought evidence of impact on gender equality via reports of organisation-level effectiveness, of promotion or retention, pay and academic performance of female staff.ResultsWe identified 32 publications: 8 review articles, 20 primary observational studies and 4 randomised controlled trials. A further 19 discussed mentoring in relation to gender but did not meet our eligibility criteria. The terminology used, and the structures and processes reported as constituting mentoring, varied greatly. We identified that mentoring is popular with many who receive it; however, we found no robust evidence of effectiveness in reducing gender inequalities. Primary research used weak evaluation designs.ConclusionsMentoring is a complex intervention. Future evaluations should adopt standardised approaches used in applied health research to the design and evaluation of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.
| S-EPMC7839843 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceGender disparities exist throughout medicine. Recent studies have highlighted an attainment gap between male and female residents in performance evaluations on Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestones. Because of difficulties in blinding evaluators to gender, it remains unclear whether these observed disparities are because of implicit bias or other causes.ObjectiveTo estimate the magnitude of implicit gender bias in assessments of procedural competency in emergency medicine residents and whether the gender of the evaluator is associated with identified implicit gender bias.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional study was performed from 2018 to 2020 in which emergency medicine residency faculty assessed procedural competency by evaluating videos of residents performing 3 procedures in a simulated environment. They were blinded to the intent of the study. Proceduralists were filmed performing each procedure from 2 different viewpoints simultaneously by 2 different cameras. One was a gender-blinded (ie, hands-only) view, and the other a wide-angled gender-evident (ie, whole-body) view. The faculty evaluators viewed videos in a random order and assessed procedural competency on a global rating scale with extensive validity evidence for the evaluation of video-recorded procedural performance.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was to determine if there was a difference in the evaluation of procedural competency based on gender. The secondary outcome was to determine if there was a difference in the evaluations based on the gender of the evaluator.ResultsFifty-one faculty evaluators enrolled from 19 states, with 22 male participants (43.1%), 29 female participants (56.9%), and a mean (SD) age of 37 (6.4) years. Each evaluator assessed all 60 procedures: 30 gender-blinded (hands-only view) videos and 30 identical gender-evident (wide angle) videos. There were no statistically significant differences in the study evaluators' scores of the proceduralists based on their gender, and the gender of the evaluator was not associated with the difference in mean scores.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, we did not identify a difference in the evaluation of procedural competency based upon the gender of the resident proceduralist or the gender of the faculty evaluator.
| S-EPMC8822382 | biostudies-literature