Gender bias in teaching evaluations: the causal role of department gender composition.

Women are underrepresented in academia's higher ranks. Promotion oftentimes requires positive student-provided course evaluations. At a U.S. university, both an archival and an experimental investigation uncovered gender discrimination that affected both men and women. A department's gender composition and the course levels being taught interacted to predict biases in evaluations. However, women were disproportionately impacted because women were more often in the gender minority. A subsequent audit of the university's promotion guidelines suggested a disproportionate impact on women's career trajectories. Our framework was guided by role congruity theory, which poses that workplace positions are gendered by the ratios of men and women who fill them. We hypothesized that students would expect educators in a department's gender majority to fill more so essential positions of teaching upper-level courses and those in the minority to fill more so supportive positions of teaching lower-level courses. Consistent with role congruity theory when an educator's gender violated expected gendered roles, we generally found discrimination in the form of lower evaluation scores. A follow-up experiment demonstrated that it was possible to change students' expectations about which gender would teach their courses. When we assigned students randomly to picture themselves as students in a male-dominated, female-dominated, or gender-parity department, we shifted their expectations of whether men or women would teach upper- and lower-level courses. Violating students' expectations created negative biases in teaching evaluations. This provided a causal link between department gender composition and discrimination. The importance of gender representation and ameliorating strategies are discussed.

White patients' physical responses to healthcare treatments are influenced by provider race and gender.

The healthcare workforce in the United States is becoming increasingly diverse, gradually shifting society away from the historical overrepresentation of White men among physicians. However, given the long-standing underrepresentation of people of color and women in the medical field, patients may still associate the concept of doctors with White men and may be physiologically less responsive to treatment administered by providers from other backgrounds. To investigate this, we varied the race and gender of the provider from which White patients received identical treatment for allergic reactions and measured patients' improvement in response to this treatment, thus isolating how a provider's demographic characteristics shape physical responses to healthcare. A total of 187 White patients experiencing a laboratory-induced allergic reaction interacted with a healthcare provider who applied a treatment cream and told them it would relieve their allergic reaction. Unbeknownst to the patients, the cream was inert (an unscented lotion) and interactions were completely standardized except for the provider's race and gender. Patients were randomly assigned to interact with a provider who was a man or a woman and Asian, Black, or White. A fully blinded research assistant measured the change in the size of patients' allergic reaction after cream administration. Results indicated that White patients showed a weaker response to the standardized treatment over time when it was administered by women or Black providers. We explore several potential explanations for these varied physiological treatment responses and discuss the implications of problematic race and gender dynamics that can endure "under the skin," even for those who aim to be bias free.

Intestinal permeability and inflammatory features of juvenile age correlate with the eventual systemic autoimmunity in lupus-prone female SWR × NZB F1 (SNF1) mice.

The incidence of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is about nine times higher in women than in men, and the underlying mechanisms that contribute to this gender bias are not fully understood. Previously, using lupus-prone (SWR × NZB)F1 (SNF1) mice, we have shown that the intestinal immune system could play a role in the initiation and progression of disease in SLE, and depletion of gut microbiota produces more pronounced disease protection in females than in males. Here, we show that the gut permeability features of lupus-prone female SNF1 mice at juvenile ages directly correlate with the expression levels of pro-inflammatory factors, faecal IgA abundance and nAg reactivity and the eventual systemic autoantibody levels and proteinuria onset. Furthermore, we observed that the disease protection achieved in female SNF1 mice upon depletion of gut microbiota correlates with the diminished gut inflammatory protein levels, intestinal permeability and circulating microbial DNA levels. However, faecal microbiota transplant from juvenile male and females did not result in modulation of gut inflammatory features or permeability. Overall, these observations suggest that the early onset of intestinal inflammation, systemic autoantibody production and clinical stage disease in lupus-prone females is linked to higher gut permeability in them starting at as early as juvenile age. While the higher gut permeability in juvenile lupus-prone females is dependent on the presence of gut microbes, it appears to be independent of the composition of gut microbiota.

Association of Double-Blind Reviews With Increases in Women as First Authors: An Initial Report From the Journal of Cardiac Failure.

INTRODUCTION: Women continue to remain under-represented in academic publishing in the field of cardiology. Some evidence suggests that double-blind peer reviews may mitigate the impact of gender bias. In July 2021, the Journal of Cardiac Failure implemented a process for the conduct of double-blind reviews after previously using single-blind reviews, with the aim of improving author diversity. The purpose of the current study was to examine the association between changes in authorship characteristics and implementation of double-blind reviews. METHODS: Manuscripts were stratified into 3 Eras: March-September 2021 (Era 1: prior to double-blind reviews); March-September 2022 (Era 2); and March-September 2023 (Era 3). All article types except invited editorials were included. Data were abstracted, including names, genders, ranks, and disciplines of the first and senior authors. RESULTS: A total of 310 manuscripts were included in the analysis. The proportion of women first authors increased from 24% in Era 1 to 34% in Era 2 to 39% in Era 3, while the percentage of women authors serving in a senior authorship role remained fairly stable over time-around 21%-22%. Even after adjusting for region, article type, first-author discipline, and last-author gender, there was an increase in female first authors over time (P = 0.015). Manuscripts with a female senior author were significantly more likely to have a female first author. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that double-blind peer review may contribute to increased gender diversity of first authors and may highlight areas for future improvement by the Journal and academic publishing in general.

Gender differences in autonomy and performance assessments in a national cohort of vascular surgery trainees.

OBJECTIVE: Gender disparities in surgical training and assessment are described in the general surgery literature. Assessment disparities have not been explored in vascular surgery. We sought to investigate gender disparities in operative assessment in a national cohort of vascular surgery integrated residents (VIRs) and fellows (VSFs). METHODS: Operative performance and autonomy ratings from the Society for Improving Medical Professional Learning (SIMPL) application database were collected for all vascular surgery participating institutions from 2018 to 2023. Logistic generalized linear mixed models were conducted to examine the association of faculty and trainee gender on faculty and self-assessment of autonomy and performance. Data were adjusted for post-graduate year and case complexity. Random effects were included to account for clustering effects due to participant, program, and procedure. RESULTS: One hundred three trainees (n = 63 VIRs; n = 40 VSFs; 63.1% men) and 99 faculty (73.7% men) from 17 institutions (n = 12 VIR and n = 13 VSF programs) contributed 4951 total assessments (44.4% by faculty, 55.6% by trainees) across 235 unique procedures. Faculty and trainee gender were not associated with faculty ratings of performance (faculty gender: odds ratio [OR], 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-2.29; trainee gender: OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 0.76-0.43) or autonomy (faculty gender: OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.41-2.39; trainee gender: OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.62-2.45) of trainees. All trainees self-assessed at lower performance and autonomy ratings as compared with faculty assessments. However, women trainees rated themselves significantly lower than men for both autonomy (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.43-0.74) and performance (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.30-0.54). CONCLUSIONS: Although gender was not associated with differences in faculty assessment of performance or autonomy among vascular surgery trainees, women trainees perceive themselves as performing with lower competency and less autonomy than their male colleagues. These findings suggest utility for exploring gender differences in real-time feedback delivered to and received by trainees and targeted interventions to align trainee self-perception with actual operative performance and autonomy to optimize surgical skill acquisition.

Stereotype Threat and Gender Bias in Internal Medicine Residency: It is Still Hard to be in Charge.

BACKGROUND: Despite similar numbers of women and men in internal medicine (IM) residency, women face unique challenges. Stereotype threat is hypothesized to contribute to underrepresentation of women in academic leadership, and exploring how it manifests in residency may provide insight into forces that perpetuate gender disparities. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the prevalence of stereotype threat in IM residency and explore experiences contributing to that stereotype threat. DESIGN: We used a mixed methods study design. First, we surveyed IM residents using the Stereotype Vulnerability Scale (SVS) to screen for stereotype threat. Second, we conducted focus groups with women who scored high on the SVS to understand experiences that led to stereotype threat. PARTICIPANTS: The survey was sent to all IM residents at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), in September-November 2019. Focus groups were conducted at UCSF in Spring 2020. APPROACH: The survey included an adapted version of the SVS. For focus groups, we developed a focus group guide informed by literature on stereotype threat. We used a thematic approach to data analysis. The mixed methods design enabled us to draw metainferences by integrating the two data sources. KEY RESULTS: Survey response rate was 61% (110/181). Women were significantly more likely than men to have a score indicating stereotype threat vulnerability (77% vs 0%, p < 0.001). Four themes from focus groups characterized women's experiences of gender bias and stereotype threat: gender norm tension, microaggressions and sexual harassment, authority questioned, and support and allyship. CONCLUSIONS: Gender-based stereotype threat is highly prevalent among women IM residents. This phenomenon poses a threat to confidence and ability to execute patient care responsibilities, detracting from well-being and professional development. These findings indicate that, despite robust representation of women in IM training, further attention is needed to address gendered experiences and contributors to women's vulnerability to stereotype threat.

Gender Differences in Work-Based Assessment Scores and Narrative Comments After Direct Observation.

BACKGROUND: While some prior studies of work-based assessment (WBA) numeric ratings have not shown gender differences, they have been unable to account for the true performance of the resident or explore narrative differences by gender. OBJECTIVE: To explore gender differences in WBA ratings as well as narrative comments (when scripted performance was known). DESIGN: Secondary analysis of WBAs obtained from a randomized controlled trial of a longitudinal rater training intervention in 2018-2019. Participating faculty (n = 77) observed standardized resident-patient encounters and subsequently completed rater assessment forms (RAFs). SUBJECTS: Participating faculty in longitudinal rater training. MAIN MEASURES: Gender differences in mean entrustment ratings (4-point scale) were assessed with multivariable regression (adjusted for scripted performance, rater and resident demographics, and the interaction between study arm and time period [pre- versus post-intervention]). Using pre-specified natural language processing categories (masculine, feminine, agentic, and communal words), multivariable linear regression was used to determine associations of word use in the narrative comments with resident gender, race, and skill level, faculty demographics, and interaction between the study arm and the time period (pre- versus post-intervention). KEY RESULTS: Across 1527 RAFs, there were significant differences in entrustment ratings between women and men standardized residents (2.29 versus 2.54, respectively, p < 0.001) after correction for resident skill level. As compared to men, feminine terms were more common for comments of what the resident did poorly among women residents (ß 0.45, CI 0.12-0.78, p 0.01). This persisted despite adjusting for the faculty's entrustment ratings. There were no other significant linguistic differences by gender. CONCLUSIONS: Contrasting prior studies, we found entrustment rating differences in a simulated WBA which persisted after adjusting for the resident's scripted performance. There were also linguistic differences by gender after adjusting for entrustment ratings, with feminine terms being used more frequently in comments about women in some, but not all narrative comments.

Intraoperative Communication Among Men and Women Surgeons With Nursing and Anesthesia Providers.

INTRODUCTION: Gender bias has been reported by women surgeons, but its impact on communication in the operating room (OR) is unclear. OR communication is critical to understand, as it directly impacts patient outcomes. The current study evaluates potential gender bias in the type and quality of communication between surgeons and OR nursing and anesthesia providers. METHODS: We developed a novel intraoperative communication assessment tool, Operating Room Communication Quality assessment tool (OComm), which was adapted from previously validated teamwork assessment tools. Independent coders recorded the instances of conversation and categorized them into clinical or casual communication. After the operation, the participants were assigned a score from the OComm tool. Participants were then given the same OComm measure to assess their self-perceived communication quality and collect demographic information. RESULTS: For both genders, surgeons' median self-perceived OComm scores was 3.47/4, but surgeons observed OComm score was 2.91/4. Anesthesia providers noted the highest median self-perceived OComm score of 3.65/4 but the lowest observed OComm median score of 2.29/4. From both surgeon to nurse and surgeon to anesthesia provider, there was no association between the gender and frequency of casual conversation (P = 1 > 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: There was no gender difference in the degree to which women and men surgeons engaged in casual conversation with nursing and anesthesia providers. Surgeons, both men and women, were also more likely to rate their quality of communication lower than the nurses and anesthesia providers, while independent coders were more likely to rate surgeons' quality of communication higher than that of nurses and anesthesia providers.

Regional Disparities in Kidney Transplant Allocation in Brazil: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Brazil has a large public transplant program, but it remains unclear if the kidney waitlist criteria effectively allocate organs. This study aimed to investigate whether gender, ethnicity, clinical characteristics, and Brazilian regions affect the chance of deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Transplant System/Brazil database, which included all patients on the kidney transplant waitlist from January 2012 to December 2022, followed until May 2023. The primary outcome assessed was the chance of DDKT, measured using subdistribution hazard and cause-specific hazard models (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR]). RESULTS: We analyzed 118 617 waitlisted patients over a 10-year study period. Male patients had an sHR of 1.07 ([95% CI: 1.05-1.10], p < 0.001), indicating a higher chance of DDTK. Patients of mixed race and Yellow/Indigenous ethnicity had lower rates of receiving a transplant compared to Caucasian patients, with sHR of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95-1) and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.95-1), respectively. Patients from the South region had the highest chance of DDKT, followed by those from the Midwest and Northeast, compared to patients from the Southeast, with sHR of 2.53 (95% CI: 2.47-2.61), 1.21 (95% CI: 1.16-1.27), and 1.10 (95% CI: 1.07-1.13), respectively. The North region had the lowest chance of DDTK, sHR of 0.29 (95% CI: 0.27-0.31). CONCLUSION: We found that women and racial minorities faced disadvantages in kidney transplantation. Additionally, we observed regional disparities, with the North region having the lowest chance of DDKT and longer times on dialysis before being waitlisted. In contrast, patients in the South regions had a chance of DDKT and shorter times on dialysis before being waitlisted. It is urgent to implement approaches to enhance transplant capacity in the North region and address race and gender disparities in transplantation.

Rooting for Their Own Gender: Preschoolers' Selective Preference for Winners.

Children's social preferences are influenced by the relative status of other individuals, but also by their social identity and the degree to which those individuals are like them. Previous studies have investigated these aspects separately and showed that in some circumstances children prefer high-status individuals and own-gender individuals. Gender is a particularly interesting case to study because it is a strong dimension of social identity, but also one of the most prevalent forms of social hierarchy, with males conceptualised as superior to females, by adults and children alike. Here we directly asked how children's social preferences are influenced by status (winner or loser of a zero-sum conflict) and winner gender (female or male) in different scenarios (same or mixed-gender). In Experiment 1, children saw same-gender conflicts between two females or two males and they displayed an overall preference for winners. In Experiment 2, participants watched two mixed-gender conflicts, one where the female prevailed and one where the male prevailed. In this case, children chose the winner, but only when they had the same gender as themselves. Experiment 3 confirmed that children preferred own-gender individuals in the absence of conflict or status. Overall, children are sensitive to the relative status of other individuals and use this information to make social decisions. However, preschoolers do not prefer just any individual who wins access to a resource. They preferred dominant individuals, but only when they were of their own gender. This suggests that children's dominance evaluations are modulated by children's social identity.

Evaluating gender bias in ML-based clinical risk prediction models: A study on multiple use cases at different hospitals.

BACKGROUND: An inherent difference exists between male and female bodies, the historical under-representation of females in clinical trials widened this gap in existing healthcare data. The fairness of clinical decision-support tools is at risk when developed based on biased data. This paper aims to quantitatively assess the gender bias in risk prediction models. We aim to generalize our findings by performing this investigation on multiple use cases at different hospitals. METHODS: First, we conduct a thorough analysis of the source data to find gender-based disparities. Secondly, we assess the model performance on different gender groups at different hospitals and on different use cases. Performance evaluation is quantified using the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Lastly, we investigate the clinical implications of these biases by analyzing the underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis rate, and the decision curve analysis (DCA). We also investigate the influence of model calibration on mitigating gender-related disparities in decision-making processes. RESULTS: Our data analysis reveals notable variations in incidence rates, AUROC, and over-diagnosis rates across different genders, hospitals and clinical use cases. However, it is also observed the underdiagnosis rate is consistently higher in the female population. In general, the female population exhibits lower incidence rates and the models perform worse when applied to this group. Furthermore, the decision curve analysis demonstrates there is no statistically significant difference between the model's clinical utility across gender groups within the interested range of thresholds. CONCLUSION: The presence of gender bias within risk prediction models varies across different clinical use cases and healthcare institutions. Although inherent difference is observed between male and female populations at the data source level, this variance does not affect the parity of clinical utility. In conclusion, the evaluations conducted in this study highlight the significance of continuous monitoring of gender-based disparities in various perspectives for clinical risk prediction models.

COVID-19 as a chronic stressor and the importance of individual identity: A data-driven look at academic productivity during the pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic impacted personal and professional life. For academics, research, teaching, and service tasks were upended and we all had to navigate the altered landscape. However, some individuals faced a disproportionate burden, particularly academics with minoritized identities or those who were early career, were caregivers, or had intersecting identities. As comparative endocrinologists, we determine how aspects of individual and species-level variation influence response to, recovery from, and resilience in the face of stressors. Here, we flip that framework and apply an integrative biological lens to the impact of the COVID-19 chronic stressor on our endocrine community. We address how the pandemic altered impact factors of academia (e.g., scholarly products) and relatedly, how factors of impact (e.g., sex, gender, race, career stage, caregiver status, etc.) altered the way in which individuals could respond. We predict the pandemic will have long-term impacts on the population dynamics, composition, and landscape of our academic ecosystem. Impact factors of research, namely journal submissions, were altered by COVID-19, and women authors saw a big dip. We discuss this broadly and then report General and Comparative Endocrinology (GCE) manuscript submission and acceptance status by gender and geographic region from 2019 to 2023. We also summarize how the pandemic impacted individuals with different axes of identity, how academic institutions have responded, compile proposed solutions, and conclude with a discussion on what we can all do to (re)build the academy in an equitable way. At GCE, the first author positions had gender parity, but men outnumbered women at the corresponding author position. Region of manuscript origin mattered for submission and acceptance rates, and women authors from Asia and the Middle East were the most heavily impacted by the pandemic. The number of manuscripts submitted dropped after year 1 of the pandemic and has not yet recovered. Thus, COVID-19 was a chronic stressor for the GCE community.

Gender bias of antisocial and borderline personality disorders among psychiatrists.

PURPOSE: Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) and Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) challenge mental health professionals with similar maladaptive behaviors. However, these two disorders differ regarding available evidence-based treatments. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) has been criticized as being gender-biased diagnostic construct. The present study aimed to determine the gender bias of ASPD and BPD among Turkish psychiatrists. METHODS: Three case vignettes were randomly presented as male or female to the psychiatrists online. The first case was a patient with schizophrenia case to confirm the participant's ability to diagnose. The second case was a patient with ASPD, and the third one was a patient with BPD. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty participants diagnosed the first case correctly (n = 250). The results with statistical significance demonstrated that a female case with ASPD was 5.1 times more likely to get misdiagnosed than a male case with ASPD (p˂0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Categorical classification of personality disorders in DSM leads to gender bias in in the diagnosis of ASPD and BPD. The present study shows that female cases with ASPD are misdiagnosed as BPD which may result in treatment attempts without evidence.

Assessing supervisor versus trainee viewpoints of entrustment through cognitive and affective lenses: an artificial intelligence investigation of bias in feedback.

The entrustment framework redirects assessment from considering only trainees' competence to decision-making about their readiness to perform clinical tasks independently. Since trainees and supervisors both contribute to entrustment decisions, we examined the cognitive and affective factors that underly their negotiation of trust, and whether trainee demographic characteristics may bias them. Using a document analysis approach, we adapted large language models (LLMs) to examine feedback dialogs (N = 24,187, each with an associated entrustment rating) between medical student trainees and their clinical supervisors. We compared how trainees and supervisors differentially documented feedback dialogs about similar tasks by identifying qualitative themes and quantitatively assessing their correlation with entrustment ratings. Supervisors' themes predominantly reflected skills related to patient presentations, while trainees' themes were broader-including clinical performance and personal qualities. To examine affect, we trained an LLM to measure feedback sentiment. On average, trainees used more negative language (5.3% lower probability of positive sentiment, p < 0.05) compared to supervisors, while documenting higher entrustment ratings (+ 0.08 on a 1-4 scale, p < 0.05). We also found biases tied to demographic characteristics: trainees' documentation reflected more positive sentiment in the case of male trainees (+ 1.3%, p < 0.05) and of trainees underrepresented in medicine (UIM) (+ 1.3%, p < 0.05). Entrustment ratings did not appear to reflect these biases, neither when documented by trainee nor supervisor. As such, bias appeared to influence the emotive language trainees used to document entrustment more than the degree of entrustment they experienced. Mitigating these biases is nonetheless important because they may affect trainees' assimilation into their roles and formation of trusting relationships.

Gender bias in assessing narcissistic personality: Exploring the utility of the ICD-11 dimensional model.

OBJECTIVES: Narcissistic personality disorder as captured in categorical diagnostic systems (e.g., DSM-5) emphasizes grandiose features more associated with masculine norms and under-emphasizes vulnerable features more associated with femininity. This poses significant implications in diagnostic outcome and clinical treatment in women with narcissistic preoccupations. Research finds that clinicians using the DSM-5 categorical system tend to diagnose vulnerable narcissism in women as other 'feminized' personality disorders (e.g., borderline), but no research has explored gender differences in narcissism using the new ICD-11 dimensional framework for personality disorders. This study investigated the clinical utility of the ICD-11 approach in capturing gender differences in narcissistic presentations. METHODS: Adopting an online vignette-based study, mental health clinicians (N = 157; 71.3% female) completed ratings of ICD-11 personality disorder severity and trait domains for two cases reflecting 'grandiose' and 'vulnerable' narcissism in hypothetical male or female patients. RESULTS: The results showed that ratings of core impairments in personality functioning and overall severity were consistent irrespective of patient or clinician gender, contrasting prior research using categorical models. CONCLUSION: While some differences were observed in trait domain (e.g., negative affectivity) between patient gender, these results suggest the clinical utility of the ICD-11 model as emphasizing elements of personality functioning in the process of assessment and diagnosis, therefore potentially being less susceptible to influences of gender stereotype in aiding clinical conceptualization.

Gender Bias in AI's Perception of Cardiovascular Risk.

The study investigated gender bias in GPT-4's assessment of coronary artery disease risk by presenting identical clinical vignettes of men and women with and without psychiatric comorbidities. Results suggest that psychiatric conditions may influence GPT-4's coronary artery disease risk assessment among men and women.

What's in a Name? Experimental Evidence of Gender Bias in Recommendation Letters Generated by ChatGPT.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence chatbots such as ChatGPT (OpenAI) have garnered excitement about their potential for delegating writing tasks ordinarily performed by humans. Many of these tasks (eg, writing recommendation letters) have social and professional ramifications, making the potential social biases in ChatGPT's underlying language model a serious concern. OBJECTIVE: Three preregistered studies used the text analysis program Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count to investigate gender bias in recommendation letters written by ChatGPT in human-use sessions (N=1400 total letters). METHODS: We conducted analyses using 22 existing Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count dictionaries, as well as 6 newly created dictionaries based on systematic reviews of gender bias in recommendation letters, to compare recommendation letters generated for the 200 most historically popular "male" and "female" names in the United States. Study 1 used 3 different letter-writing prompts intended to accentuate professional accomplishments associated with male stereotypes, female stereotypes, or neither. Study 2 examined whether lengthening each of the 3 prompts while holding the between-prompt word count constant modified the extent of bias. Study 3 examined the variability within letters generated for the same name and prompts. We hypothesized that when prompted with gender-stereotyped professional accomplishments, ChatGPT would evidence gender-based language differences replicating those found in systematic reviews of human-written recommendation letters (eg, more affiliative, social, and communal language for female names; more agentic and skill-based language for male names). RESULTS: Significant differences in language between letters generated for female versus male names were observed across all prompts, including the prompt hypothesized to be neutral, and across nearly all language categories tested. Historically female names received significantly more social referents (5/6, 83% of prompts), communal or doubt-raising language (4/6, 67% of prompts), personal pronouns (4/6, 67% of prompts), and clout language (5/6, 83% of prompts). Contradicting the study hypotheses, some gender differences (eg, achievement language and agentic language) were significant in both the hypothesized and nonhypothesized directions, depending on the prompt. Heteroscedasticity between male and female names was observed in multiple linguistic categories, with greater variance for historically female names than for historically male names. CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT reproduces many gender-based language biases that have been reliably identified in investigations of human-written reference letters, although these differences vary across prompts and language categories. Caution should be taken when using ChatGPT for tasks that have social consequences, such as reference letter writing. The methods developed in this study may be useful for ongoing bias testing among progressive generations of chatbots across a range of real-world scenarios. TRIAL REGISTRATION: OSF Registries osf.io/ztv96; https://osf.io/ztv96.

Female leadership representation within otolaryngology specialty societies.

OBJECTIVES: Determine if women have continued parity in leadership in otolaryngology specialty societies as compared to a paper by Choi and Miller in 2012. Additionally, we wanted insight into obstacles female leaders faced by surveying them directly to better understand their experiences with gender bias. METHODS: Chi-squared test evaluation was done using the American Academy of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery (AAOHNS) 2020 membership data and directly from various otolaryngology specialty societies. An anonymous survey to assess different experiences of leaders in various Otolaryngology specialty societies was sent to current and past leaders of specialty societies via email. Survey data was assessed using descriptive statistics and multivariate logistical analyses. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study and survey study. RESULTS: Female members comprised 19.3 % of practicing AAOHNS otolaryngologists. All societies had proportionate female leadership representation except for AAOA, which had greater representation. Compared to data from 10 years ago, female representation in all the societies' leadership has not changed significantly. Survey results demonstrated 64.9 % of respondents felt gender bias exists in Otolaryngology. 45.6 % of respondents personally experienced gender bias during their careers. Survey results showed males are less likely to experience gender bias. CONCLUSION: There is stability in the proportion of women in otolaryngology leadership positions compared to a decade ago largely due to efforts of leaders in the field. However, women leaders note experiencing gender bias and time away from clinical duties are prospective areas where support can be given.

Undergraduate nursing students challenge misconceptions towards men in nursing: A mixed-method study.

AIMS: To examine misconceptions towards men in nursing from the perspective of undergraduate nursing students. Specifically, this study sought to explore contributing factors of misconceptions and attributions of the success of men in nursing. DESIGN: A convergent parallel mixed-method study. METHODS: A national survey was conducted (July-September 2021). The quantitative data included demographics and responses to the Gender Misconceptions of Men in Nursing (GEMINI) scale. The qualitative data included responses to a provocative statement related to characteristics of men and their career in nursing. The GRAMMS guideline was used in reporting. RESULTS: Undergraduate nursing students (n = 1245) from 16 Australian schools of nursing responded to the survey. Quantitative analysis demonstrated that most students (96%) did not have misconceptions about men in nursing. Those who did were more likely to be men, born overseas, not in health-related employment and did not have nursing as their first choice. Four broad overarching main themes were generated in response to the statement that suggested men do not have the right attributes for nursing: (1) 'This is a very misandristic viewpoint'; (2) 'Compassion and intelligence are distributed in men and women equally'; (3) 'Men bring a different quality to nursing' (4) 'Anyone can be whatever they want to be'. CONCLUSION: Overall, nursing students did not have misconceptions about men in nursing, despite experiencing ongoing social stigma regarding archaic gender norms. The findings from this study indicate that the next-generation nurses were championing to challenge the gender stereotype and support the needs of a gender diverse society. IMPACT: Attitudes and misconceptions that elicit gender inequalities must be addressed with comprehensive strategies and de-gendered language and imagery within the profession, schools, workplaces and the media. Shifting culture and attitudes towards inclusion, values the diversity in the workforce and supports healthy workplace environments. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.

Gender influences resident physicians' perception of an employee-to-employee recognition program: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Burnout is prevalent in medical training. While some institutions have implemented employee-to-employee recognition programs to promote wellness, it is not known how such programs are perceived by resident physicians, or if the experience differs among residents of different genders. METHODS: We used convergent mixed methods to characterize how residents in internal medicine (IM), pediatrics, and general surgery programs experience our employee-to-employee recognition ("Hi-5″) program. We collected Hi-5s received by residents in these programs from January 1, 2021-December 31, 2021 and coded them for recipient discipline, sex, and PGY level and sender discipline and professional role. We conducted virtual focus groups with residents in each training program. MAIN MEASURES AND APPROACH: We compared Hi-5 receipt between male and female residents; overall and from individual professions. We submitted focus group transcripts to content analysis with codes generated iteratively and emergent themes identified through consensus coding. RESULTS: Over a 12-month period, residents received 382 Hi-5s. There was no significant difference in receipt of Hi-5s by male and female residents. Five IM, 3 surgery, and 12 pediatric residents participated in focus groups. Residents felt Hi-5s were useful for interprofessional feedback and to mitigate burnout. Residents who identified as women shared concerns about differing expectations of professional behavior and communication based on gender, a fear of backlash when behavior does not align with gender stereotypes, and professional misidentification. CONCLUSIONS: The "Hi-5" program is valuable for interprofessional feedback and promotion of well-being but is experienced differently by men and women residents. This limitation of employee-to-employee recognition should be considered when designing equitable programming to promote well-being and recognition.