Disparities in Research during Plastic Surgery Training: How Can We Level the Playing Field?

Background: Lack of female and ethnically underrepresented in medicine (UIM) surgeons remains concerning in academic plastic surgery. One barrier to inclusion may be unequal opportunity to publish research. This study evaluates the extent of this challenge for plastic surgery trainees and identifies potential solutions. Methods: Data were collected on academic plastic surgeons' research productivity during training. Bivariate analysis compared publication measures between genders and race/ethnicities at different training stages (pre-residency/residency/clinical fellowship). Multivariate analysis determined training experiences independently associated with increased research productivity. Results: Overall, women had fewer total publications than men during training (8.89 versus 12.46, P = 0.0394). Total publications were similar between genders before and during residency (P > 0.05 for both) but lower for women during fellowship (1.32 versus 2.48, P = 0.0042). Women had a similar number of first-author publications during training (3.97 versus 5.24, P = 0.1030) but fewer middle-author publications (4.70 versus 6.81, P = 0.0405). UIM and non-UIM individuals had similar productivity at all training stages and authorship positions (P > 0.05 for all). Research fellowship completion was associated with increased total, first-, and middle-author training publications (P < 0.001 for all). Conclusions: Less research productivity for female plastic surgery trainees may reflect a disparity in opportunity to publish. Fewer middle-author publications could indicate challenges with network-building in a predominately male field. Despite comparable research productivity during training relative to non- UIM individuals, UIM individuals remain underrepresented in academic plastic surgery. Creating research fellowships for targeting underrepresented groups could help overcome these challenges.

Predictors of Plastic Surgeons Becoming Presidents of National Professional Organizations in the United States of America.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated metrics between academic plastic surgeons that were and were not presidents of national organizations to determine predictors of becoming a president. METHODS: A cross-sectional retrospective review was performed. Websites were queried of 99 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education accredited plastic surgery residency programs and 17 national organizations. Demographic, academic and scholarly variables we collected from 951 full-time plastic surgery faculty affiliated with the US residency training programs during the 2020-2021 academic year. Of these full-time plastic surgery faculty, 879 were non-presidents and 72 were presidents of national organizations (2016-2021 = 42, < 2016 = 30). RESULTS: Plastic surgeons were more likely to become president if they were an officer/director of the American Board of Plastic Surgeons (ABPS) (OR: 16.67, 95%CI: 5.83, 47.66; p < 0.001), chief/chair of a division/department (OR: 3.10, 95%CI: 1.09, 8.79; p = 0.033), endowed (OR: 5.45, 95%CI:1.65, 18.04; p = 0.006), National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded (OR: 4.57, 95%CI: 1.24, 16.88; p = 0.023), affiliated with an integrated plastic surgery residency program (OR: 3.96, 95%CI: 1.27, 12.33; p = 0.018), and with a greater number of years in practice (OR: 1.09, 95%CI: 1.04, 1.14; p < 0.001). Additionally, plastic surgeons were more likely to become president between 2016 and 2021 with a research fellowship (OR: 7.41, 95%CI: 1.02, 52.63; p = 0.047), first author publications (OR: 1.72, 95%CI: 1.63, 1.83; p < 0.001), and last author publications (OR: 1.60, 95%CI: 1.56, 1.65; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Plastic surgeons were more likely to become president of a national organization if they were an officer/director of the ABPS, chief/chair of a division/department, endowed, NIH funded, affiliated with an integrated plastic surgery residency program, greater number of years in practice, research fellowship, and first and last author publications. Predictors may guide those interested in becoming president of a national organization. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine Ratings, please refer to Table of Contents or online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Department Versus Division: An In-Depth Analysis of Units of Plastic Surgery and Other Surgical Specialties at Their Institutions.

ABSTRACT: An increasing number of plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) units have transitioned from divisions to departments in recent years. This study aimed to identify quantifiable differences that may reflect challenges and benefits associated with each type of unit. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of publicly-available data on characteristics of academic medical institutions housing PRS units, faculty size of surgical units within these institutions, and academic environments of PRS units themselves. Univariate analysis compared PRS divisions versus departments. Matched-paired testing compared PRS units versus other intra-institutional surgical departments. Compared to PRS divisions (n = 64), departments (n = 22) are at institutions with more surgical departments overall (P = 0.0071), particularly departments that are traditionally divisions within the department of surgery (ie urology). Compared to PRS divisions, PRS departments have faculty size that more closely resembles other intra-institutional surgical departments, especially for full-time surgical faculty and faculty in areas of clinical overlap with other departments like hand surgery. Plastic and reconstructive surgery departments differ from PRS divisions by certain academic measures, including offering more clinical fellowships (P = 0.005), running more basic science laboratories (P = 0.033), supporting more nonclinical research faculty (P = 0.0417), and training residents who produce more publications during residency (P = 0.002). Institutions with PRS divisions may be less favorable environments for surgical divisions to become departments, but other recently-transitioned divisions could provide blueprints for PRS to follow suit. Bolstering full-time surgical faculty numbers and faculty in areas of clinical overlap could be useful for PRS divisions seeking departmental status. Transitioning to department may yield objective academic benefits for PRS units.

Leaders of the Pack: A Comparison of Chairs and Chiefs to Other Surgeons in American Academic Plastic Surgery.

ABSTRACT: Chairs/chiefs of plastic surgery departments/divisions are responsible for directing activities at academic institutions and thus help determine the direction of academic plastic surgery. Other studies have characterized this group but have not shown which characteristics separate them from other surgeons in the field. To study this relationship, a cross-sectional analysis of plastic surgery faculty affiliated with United States residency training programs (n = 99) was initiated. Data were collected from public online websites. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were used to identify factors independently associated with chairs/chief status. Sub-analyses were performed within Tiers stratified by residency program rank of chair/chief's current institution. Among 943 plastic surgeons, 98 chairs/chiefs were identified. In accordance with prior literature, most are male (89%) and fellowship-trained (62%), and they have a median H-index of 17. Compared to other surgeons, chair/chiefs have more years in practice (odds ratio [OR]: 1.026, confidence interval [CI]: 0.002-0.049, P = 0.034), higher H-index (OR: 1.103, CI: 0.048-0.147, P < 0.001), and more citations (OR: 1.000, CI: -0.000 to -0.001, P = 0.006). Chair/chiefs were also more likely to be journal editorial board members (OR: 1.728, CI: -0.033 to 1.127, P = 0.046) and national society/organization presidents (OR: 1.024, CI: 0.008-0.039, P = 0.003). No notable differences were found between department chairs versus division chiefs or across Tiers. Overall, scholarly achievement and significant years of experience distinguish chairs/chiefs in American academic plastic surgery. Criteria for achieving this leadership role may not differ between departments and divisions. Further research is needed to evaluate whether these characteristics translate into more effective leadership.

"A Sign of Things to Come: Training Research Output Long-Term Scholarship in Academic Plastic Surgery."

BACKGROUNDS: Academic plastic surgery has utilized different methods to promote early involvement of trainees in research. Further analysis is needed to characterize the effects of this early emphasis and their impact on long-term academic contributions to the field. METHODS: In October 2020, a cross-sectional study of 949 faculty from US academic plastic surgery programs was conducted using publicly available websites. Training research output for each surgeon was compared to post-training research output and other metrics measuring sustained career scholarship. RESULTS: Increased training publications (P< 0.0001) and citations (P< 0.0001) were associated with fewer years in practice. 727 surgeons (80.0%) had ≥ 1 research article, and this group proceeded to attain significantly higher mean post-training publications per year (3.04 ± 0.14 vs. 1.45 ± 0.13, P< 0.0001) and citations per year (72.12 ± 5.04 vs. 28.39 ± 3.49, P< 0.0001) compared to the 182 (20.0%) surgeons with no training publications. For individuals, total training publications were positively correlated with post-training publications per year (P< 0.0001), a relationship also observed for citations (P< 0.0001). When controlling for years in practice, increased training publications and/or citations were significantly associated with attaining academic professor track (versus clinical professor track) position, endowed professor status, journal board position, and NIH funding (P< 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: There is a trend of increasing research productivity during plastic surgery training, and increased training output is predictive of attaining multiple measures of career academic achievement. Academic plastic surgery should continue to underscore research participation as a valuable part of the training process. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors   www.springer.com/00266 .