Institutional Support for the Career Advancement of Women Faculty in Science and Academic Medicine: Successes, Challenges, and Future Directions.

Institutional support is crucial for the successful career advancement of all faculty but in particular those who are women. Evolving from the past, in which gender disparities were prevalent in many institutions, recent decades have witnessed significant progress in supporting the career advancement of women faculty in science and academic medicine. However, continued advancement is necessary as previously unrecognized needs and new opportunities for improvement emerge. To identify the needs, opportunities, and potential challenges encountered by women faculty, the Women's Leadership Committee of the Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology Council developed an initiative termed GROWTH (Generating Resources and Opportunities for Women in Technology and Health). The committee designed a survey questionnaire and interviewed 19 leaders with roles and responsibilities in faculty development from a total of 12 institutions across various regions of the United States. The results were compiled, analyzed, and discussed. Based on our interviews and analyses, we present the current status of these representative institutions in supporting faculty development, highlighting efforts specific to women faculty. Through the experiences, insights, and vision of these leaders, we identified success stories, challenges, and future priorities. Our article provides a primer and a snapshot of institutional efforts to support the advancement of women faculty. Importantly, this article can serve as a reference and resource for academic entities seeking ideas to gauge their commitment level to women faculty and to implement new initiatives. Additionally, this article can provide guidance and strategies for women faculty as they seek support and resources from their current or prospective institutions when pursuing new career opportunities.

Comparison of Hospital Mortality and Readmission Rates by Physician and Patient Sex.

BACKGROUND: Little is known as to whether the effects of physician sex on patients' clinical outcomes vary by patient sex. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the association between physician sex and hospital outcomes varied between female and male patients hospitalized with medical conditions. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Medicare claims data. PATIENTS: 20% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized with medical conditions during 2016 to 2019 and treated by hospitalists. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcomes were patients' 30-day mortality and readmission rates, adjusted for patient and physician characteristics and hospital-level averages of exposures (effectively comparing physicians within the same hospital). RESULTS: Of 458 108 female and 318 819 male patients, 142 465 (31.1%) and 97 500 (30.6%) were treated by female physicians, respectively. Both female and male patients had a lower patient mortality when treated by female physicians; however, the benefit of receiving care from female physicians was larger for female patients than for male patients (difference-in-differences, -0.16 percentage points [pp] [95% CI, -0.42 to 0.10 pp]). For female patients, the difference between female and male physicians was large and clinically meaningful (adjusted mortality rates, 8.15% vs. 8.38%; average marginal effect [AME], -0.24 pp [CI, -0.41 to -0.07 pp]). For male patients, an important difference between female and male physicians could be ruled out (10.15% vs. 10.23%; AME, -0.08 pp [CI, -0.29 to 0.14 pp]). The pattern was similar for patients' readmission rates. LIMITATION: The findings may not be generalizable to younger populations. CONCLUSION: The findings indicate that patients have lower mortality and readmission rates when treated by female physicians, and the benefit of receiving treatments from female physicians is larger for female patients than for male patients. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Gregory Annenberg Weingarten, GRoW @ Annenberg.

Isolation, discrimination, and feeling "constant guilt": A mixed-methods analysis of female physicians' experience with fertility, family planning, and oncology careers.

INTRODUCTION: Family planning among female physicians is harmed by high risks of infertility, workload burden, poor family leave policies, and gender discrimination. Many women report feeling unsupported in the workplace, despite national policies to protect against unfair treatment. METHODS: This secondary analysis applied a modified version of the rigorous and accelerated data reduction technique to conduct a thematic analysis of comments to an open-ended prompt. Comments were coded by multiple trained researchers then grouped and merged into illustrative themes via qualitative techniques. RESULTS: Of 1004 responses to the quantitative survey, 162 physicians completed the open-ended prompt. Initial codes (n = 16) were combined into eight groups including, from which three overarching themes were identified. Institutional barriers were highlighted with comments discussing the increased need for parental leave, part-time options and the concern for academic or professional punishment for being pregnant and/or having children. Departmental barriers were explored with comments grouped around codes of discrimination/negative culture and challenges with breastfeeding/pumping and childcare. Personal barriers were discussed in themes highlighting the difficulties that female physicians faced around the timing of family planning, challenges with reproductive health and assistance, and alternative circumstances and/or decisions against family planning. CONCLUSION: Barriers to family planning in oncology exist across career domains from dysfunctional maternity leave to poor education on infertility risk. Solutions include improving institutional support, expanding parental leave, and general cultural change to improve awareness and promotion of family and career balance.

A comprehensive analysis of leadership attributes, discrepancies, and implications for gender equity in vascular surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Well-developed leadership skills have been associated with a better understanding of health care context, increased team performance, and improved patient outcomes. Surgeons, in particular, stand to benefit from leadership development. Although studies have focused on investigating knowledge gaps and needs of surgeons in leadership roles, there is a noticeable gap in the literature concerning leadership in vascular surgery. The goal of this study was to characterize current leadership attributes of vascular surgeons and understand demographic influences on leadership patterns. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was a descriptive analysis of vascular surgeons and their observers who took the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) from 2020 to 2023. The LPI is a 30-question inventory that measures the frequency of specific leadership behaviors across five practices of leadership. RESULTS: A total of 110 vascular surgeons completed the LPI. The majority of participants were White (56%) and identified as male (60%). Vascular surgeons most frequently observed the "enabling others to act" leadership practice style (8.90 ± 0.74) by all evaluators. Vascular surgeons were most frequently above the 70th percentile in the "challenge the process" leadership practice style (49%) compared with the average of other leaders worldwide. Observers rated vascular surgeons as displaying significantly more frequent leadership behaviors than vascular surgeons rated themselves in every leadership practice style (P < .01). The only demographic variable associated with a significantly increased occurrence of achieving 70th percentile across all five leadership practice styles was the male gender: a multivariable model adjusting for objective experience showed that men were at least 3.5 times more likely to be rated above the 70th percentile than women. CONCLUSIONS: Vascular surgeons under-report the frequency at which they practice leadership skills across all five leadership practice styles and should recognize their strengths of enabling others to act and challenging the process. Men are recognized as exhibiting all five leadership practices more frequently than women, regardless of current position or experience level. This observation may reflect the limited leadership positions available for women, thereby restricting their opportunities to demonstrate leadership practices as frequently or recognizably as their male counterparts.

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.

Association between anaesthesia-surgery team sex diversity and major morbidity.

BACKGROUND: Team diversity is recognized not only as an equity issue but also a catalyst for improved performance through diversity in knowledge and practices. However, team diversity data in healthcare are limited and it is not known whether it may affect outcomes in surgery. This study examined the association between anaesthesia-surgery team sex diversity and postoperative outcomes. METHODS: This was a population-based retrospective cohort study of adults undergoing major inpatient procedures between 2009 and 2019. The exposure was the hospital percentage of female anaesthetists and surgeons in the year of surgery. The outcome was 90-day major morbidity. Restricted cubic splines were used to identify a clinically meaningful dichotomization of team sex diversity, with over 35% female anaesthetists and surgeons representing higher diversity. The association with outcomes was examined using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 709 899 index operations performed at 88 hospitals, 90-day major morbidity occurred in 14.4%. The median proportion of female anaesthetists and surgeons was 28 (interquartile range 25-31)% per hospital per year. Care in hospitals with higher sex diversity (over 35% female) was associated with reduced odds of 90-day major morbidity (OR 0.97, 95% c.i. 0.95 to 0.99; P = 0.02) after adjustment. The magnitude of this association was greater for patients treated by female anaesthetists (OR 0.92, 0.88 to 0.97; P = 0.002) and female surgeons (OR 0.83, 0.76 to 0.90; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Care in hospitals with greater anaesthesia-surgery team sex diversity was associated with better postoperative outcomes. Care in a hospital reaching a critical mass with over 35% female anaesthetists and surgeons, representing higher team sex-diversity, was associated with a 3% lower odds of 90-day major morbidity.

Does Sponsorship Promote Equity in Career Advancement in Academic Medicine? A Scoping Review.

Sponsorship describes a set of actions wherein an influential champion (sponsor) uses their position to actively support a colleague's career by helping them gain visibility, recognition, and/or positions. There is growing awareness of the importance of sponsorship for career advancement in academic medicine, particularly for women and those who are historically underrepresented and excluded in medicine (UIM). This scoping review examines the current landscape of evidence, and knowledge gaps, on sponsorship as it relates to career advancement in academic medicine for women and UIM faculty. We searched peer-reviewed literature in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science (WoS) over the past 50 years (from 1973 through July 2023). Sixteen studies were included in the final review. We found relative consensus on sponsorship definition and value to career advancement. Heterogeneity in study design limited our ability to directly compare study outcomes. All included studies focused on gender differences in sponsorship: two of four quantitative studies found men were more likely to receive sponsorship, one reported no gender differences, and one was insufficiently powered. All but one of the qualitative studies reported gender differences, with women less likely to access or be identified for sponsorship. The mixed-methods studies suggested sponsorship may vary by career stage. Only two studies analyzed sponsorship for UIM populations. The existing data are inconclusive regarding best ways to measure and assess sponsorship, what institutional support (e.g., structured programs, formal recognition, or incentives for sponsorship) should look like, and at what career stage sponsorship is most important. Addressing this knowledge gap will be critically important for understanding what sponsorship best practices, if any, should be used to promote equity in career advancement in academic medicine. We advocate for commitment at the institutional and national levels to develop new infrastructure for transparently and equitably supporting women and UIM in career advancement.

Gender authorship in major American and European gastroenterology journals: the gap is still unfilled.

BACKGROUND: The gender gap in the authorship of scientific research may affect career advancement. Our aim was to assess the potential gender gap in gastrointestinal (GI) journals. METHODS: A systematic review was performed of the GI literature and ongoing research in the period 2020-2022. A total 10 GI journals and ongoing research on clinicaltrials.gov were selected for review. The gender gap in first and senior authorship was evaluated for each article and ongoing research project. Associations between the gender gap and possible predictors were measured and results are presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95%CI. RESULTS: The number of first female authors (FFAs) and senior female authors (SFAs) in published articles were 1408/4207 (33.5%) and 911/4207 (21.7%), respectively. There were 781/2654 (29.4%) female principal investigators (PI)s for the ongoing research. On comparison of non-endoscopic vs. endoscopic topics, the latter were associated with the gender gap (hepatology, OR 2.15 [95%CI 1.83-2.55]; inflammatory bowel disease, OR 2.12 [95%CI 1.60-2.45]; upper and lower GI, OR 1.31 [95%CI 1.18-1.73]); as well as the type of article (original article vs. editorial, OR 1.92 [95%CI 1.58-2.33]). The type of research was also associated with the gender gap (clinical vs. preclinical studies, OR 0.88 [95%CI 0.66-0.91]). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrated a correlation between the gender gap and the design and topic of the research. Future strategies for improving equity in career development in GI endoscopy should focus on closing the gender gap in equity of authorship.

Gender differences in scholarly productivity of early-career transfusion medicine physicians.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Promotion in academic medicine requires evidence of the creation and dissemination of scholarly output, primarily through peer-reviewed publications. Studies demonstrate that scholarly activity and impact are lower for women physicians than for men physicians, especially during the early stages of their academic careers. This report reviewed physicians' academic productivity after passing their Blood Banking/Transfusion Medicine (BBTM) subspecialty exam to determine if gender discrepancies exist. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was designed to determine trends in scholarly activity for women physicians versus men physicians in BBTM. Indexed publications were reviewed using iCite, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Portfolio Analysis tool, from 1 January 2017 to 1 December 2021, for BBTM examinees who passed the sub-speciality fellowship exam in the years 2016 through 2018. RESULTS: Overall, women physicians had statistically significant fewer total career publications (median 6 vs. 9 cumulative papers, p = 0.03). Women published at a lower rate after passing BBTM boards, which was not statistically significant (0.7 vs. 1.3 publications per year). Other statistically significant findings include fewer early-career BBTM women physicians were first authors compared with men physicians (p = 0.03) and impact as assessed by relative citation ratio was higher for men (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that there are gender differences in scholarly productivity and impact on early-career BBTM physicians. Given that this cohort of BBTM physicians are early-career professionals, the significant difference in first authorship publications between women and men physicians is especially concerning. Publication metrics should be followed to ensure equitable research environments for early-career BBTM physicians.

Perceptions of the White Coat: Generational, Regional, and Gender Differences Among Surgeons.

INTRODUCTION: Recent studies have evaluated patient perception of physician attire; however, few studies have considered physician perceptions of workplace attire. This study aimed to assess current trends regarding attire preferences among surgeons. METHODS: A national, population-based survey was distributed via email and "X" (Twitter). Participants were asked to complete an online questionnaire regarding their perception of the white coat, preferred attire in clinical settings, and reasons for choice of attire. RESULTS: Of 481 participants, 172 (36%) were attendings, 164 (34%) were residents, 125 (26%) were medical students, and 20 (4%) were fellows. Those who practiced in the Midwest region were more likely to wear a white coat daily (35.1% versus 28.5% South, 23.5% Northeast, 20.0% West, P < 0.05). Late career surgeons (practicing >20 y) were more likely to wear a white coat in the hospital and wear it daily (56% versus 36% of middle-career surgeons, 34% early-career surgeons, and 26% in training, P < 0.05). Women surgeons more frequently wore a white coat in clinic (64% versus 54% men, P < 0.05), reported that wearing a white coat was influenced by their program's culture (61% versus 46% of men surgeons, P < 0.05), that they would stop wearing a white coat if other members of their department stopped (50% versus 35% of men, P < 0.05), and that they believe the white coat helps distinguish female doctors from nurses (61% versus 50% of men surgeons, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates generational, regional, and gender differences among surgeons in their perception of the white coat at a national level.

Gender Disparities in Surgical Subspecialties: A CMS Data Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The persistent under-representation of women in surgery remains a critical concern within the medical profession, prompting a need for a nuanced analysis of gender distribution. Despite advancements in medical education, historical gender disparities in surgery persist, necessitating an exploration of the specific realms where gaps are most pronounced. Leveraging the 2023 Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services National Downloadable Database, this study aims to contribute insights into the multifaceted dynamics of gender representation within surgical disciplines. METHODS: Data from 1,168,064 physicians in the 2023 Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services National Downloadable Database were analyzed to distinguish between surgeons and physicians in medicine subspecialties. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression explored demographic variables, practice settings, and temporal trends to comprehensively understand factors contributing to the observed gender gap. RESULTS: The analysis revealed a statistically significant gender difference, with only 16.7% of surgeons identified as female. Temporal trends indicated a slow increase in female surgeon representation, and specialty-specific analysis unveiled variations, such as lower likelihoods of females in cardiac surgery and higher likelihoods in colorectal surgery. Multivariable logistic regression emphasized factors influencing the odds of physicians practicing surgery, with female physicians exhibiting a lower likelihood. Regional and graduation year variations also played roles in surgical practice. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence-based insights into the persistent gender gap within surgical specialties, emphasizing the need for targeted interventions to enhance inclusivity and equity in the surgical workforce. The findings highlight intricate interplays of demographic, temporal, and specialty-specific factors, laying a foundation for future initiatives promoting a more diverse and inclusive surgical environment.

A Gravid Situation: General Surgery Faculty Support for Pregnant Surgical Residents.

INTRODUCTION: The perceptions of teaching faculty toward pregnant general surgery residents have been overlooked despite the daily interactions amongst these groups. METHODS: A 32-question survey designed to measure general surgery teaching faculty perceptions toward pregnant residents was distributed electronically from March 2022 to April 2022 to general surgery teaching faculty in the United States. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize responses and differences in perceptions, and qualitative analysis identified recurring themes from free-text responses. RESULTS: Among 163 respondents included in the final analysis, 58.5% were male and 41.5% were female. Despite 99.4% of surgeons feeling comfortable if a resident told them they were pregnant, 22.4% of surgeons disagreed that their institutions have supportive cultures toward pregnancy. Almost half (45.4%) have witnessed negative comments about pregnant residents and half (50.3%) believe that pregnant surgical residents are discriminated against by their coresidents. Nearly two-thirds of surgeons (64.8%) believe that someone should have a child whenever they wish during training. Given recent reports, 80.2% of surgeons recognized that female surgeons have increased risks of infertility and pregnancy complications. Recurring themes of normalizing pregnancy, improving policies, and creating a culture change were expressed. CONCLUSIONS: In this national survey, although there appears to be positive perceptions of pregnancy in surgical training amongst those surveyed, there is acknowledged necessity of further normalizing pregnancy and improving policies to better support pregnant residents. These data provide further evidence that though perceptions may be improving, changes are still needed to better support pregnancy during training.

Long-term trends in the work hours of physicians in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Physician work hours directly influence patient access to health care services and play a vital role in physician human resource planning. We sought to evaluate long-term trends in hours worked by physicians in Canada, overall and by subgroup. METHODS: We used Statistics Canada's Labour Force Survey to identify physicians via occupation and industry coding information. We estimated descriptive statistics and performed graphical analysis of the average weekly hours worked by physicians over the 1987-2021 period. RESULTS: Overall, weekly physician work hours remained stable from 1987 until 1997, after which they declined. Average weekly hours decreased by 6.9 hours (p < 0.001), from 52.8 in 1987-1991 to 45.9 in 2017-2021. Among male physicians, work hours declined notably after 1997, while those of female physicians remained relatively stable at around 45 per week. Hours worked by married physicians declined significantly, amounting to 7.4 fewer hours per week (p = 0.001). In contrast, unmarried physicians displayed a statistically insignificant decline of 2.2 hours (p = 0.3). The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a sharp but brief disruption in weekly hours; by the end of 2020, physicians' work hours had returned to prepandemic levels. INTERPRETATION: These findings may indicate a long-term shift in work preferences among Canadian physicians; male physicians may be seeking a better work-life balance, which, in turn, has narrowed the gap in hours worked by sex, with potential implications for pay equity. Policymakers and planners should carefully consider changes in hours worked, rather than just the total number of physicians, to ensure an accurate evaluation of the physician workforce.

A matter of life and death: physician gender and patient outcomes after surgery.

Accumulating evidence supports an effect of physician gender (or sex, a surrogate used in many studies) on important patient outcomes such as death, complications, and hospital length of stay. Recent studies suggest that these effects result from the gender diversity of the team rather than individual physician gender. Here, we reflect on the potential mechanisms of an effect of physician gender on patient outcomes.

Women speaker representation at SAGES annual meetings: a cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Gender representation trends at the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Annual Meetings and the effect of the 2018 'We R SAGES' initiatives are unknown. We assessed gender trends in oral presentations at the SAGES Annual Meeting between 2012 and 2022 with a focus on assessing the impact of the 2018 initiatives. METHODS: Abstracts selected for oral presentations from 2012 to 2022 were reviewed for presenter and first, second, and senior author gender. Gender was categorized as woman, man, or unknown using public professional profiles. Subsequent publications were identified using search engines. The primary outcome was the temporal trend of proportion of women in each role using interrupted time series analysis. Secondary outcomes included publication rates based on first and senior author genders in 2012-2018 versus 2019-2022. RESULTS: 1605 abstracts were reviewed. The proportion of women increased linearly in all categories: presenter (2.4%/year, R2 = 0.91), first author (2.4%/year, R2 = 0.90), senior author (2%/year, R2 = 0.65), and overall (2.2%, R2 = 0.91), (p < 0.01 for all). Prior to 2018, the proportion of women increased annually for presenters (coefficient: 0.026, 95% CI [0.016, 0.037], p = 0.002) and first authors (coefficient: 0.026, 95% CI [0.016, 0.037], p = 0.002), but there was no significant increase after 2018 (p > 0.05). Female second author proportion increased annually prior to 2018 (coefficient: 0.012, 95% CI [0.003, 0.021], p = 0.042) and increased by 0.139 (95% CI [0.070, 0.208], p = 0.006) in 2018. Annual female senior author proportion did not significantly change after 2018 (p > 0.05). 1198 (75.2%) abstracts led to publications. Women were as likely as men to be first (79% vs 77%, p = 0.284) or senior author (79% vs 77%, p = 0.702) in abstracts culminating in publications. There was no difference in woman first author publication rate before and after 2018 (80% vs 79%, p = 1.000), but woman senior author publication rate increased after 2018 (71% vs 83%, p = 0.032). CONCLUSION: There was an upward trend in women surgeons' presentations and associated publications in the SAGES Annual Meetings over the last decade.

Patched but Still Leaky: An Update on the Pipeline for Women in Gastroenterology.

BACKGROUND: Women remain underrepresented in gastroenterology (GI). Studies have identified that a lack of formal mentorship for women contributes to this underrepresentation. While many GI divisions have adopted models for supporting GI fellows and faculty, there is a gap in our knowledge regarding mentorship options for internal medicine (IM) residents interested in GI. AIMS: To evaluate representation of women at each level of their career (resident, fellow, and attending) and examine trends in representation of women in GI compared to other IM subspecialties. METHODS: We analyzed AAMC Physician Specialty Data Reports to compare gender representation and growth of women representation across all IM subspecialties and residencies from 2007 to 2021. RESULTS: In 2021, 44.3% of IM residents, 37.8% of GI fellows, and 19.7% of actively practicing attending gastroenterologists were women. Since 2007, GI comprised significantly lower proportions of women attendings except for cardiology, and lower representation in fellows, except for cardiology and nephrology, than other IM subspecialties (p < 0.001). There was a consistently higher proportion of women GI fellows than attendings over the past 14 years (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: GI has among the lowest representation of women at each career level compared to other IM subspecialties. Given the previously reported preference of gender congruent mentoring, the underrepresentation of senior academic gastroenterologists who are women may be a contributing factor to lower proportions of women trainees choosing to pursue GI.

Women in Gastroenterology: What Is the Current Situation? Results of an Italian National Survey.

BACKGROUND: Many women grow up dreaming of becoming doctors, preferring specialties that allow more focus on time outside the hospital and on family life. Nowadays, specialties, like gastroenterology, have still a significant gender gap. METHODS: Based on this known discrepancy, a web-based questionnaire was designed by the Young Component of the Scientific Committee of the Federation of Italian Scientific Societies of Digestive Diseases 2023 (FISMAD) to examine the current situation of female gastroenterologists in Italy. The survey, designed specifically for this study, was sent by email to all female gastroenterologists and residents gastroenterologists, members of the three major Italian societies of Gastroenterology. RESULTS: A total of 423 female physicians responded to the survey: 325 (76.8%) had full-time employment, and only a few had an academic career (7.2%). The main occupations were outpatient clinics (n = 288, 68%) and diagnostic endoscopy (n = 289, 68.3%); only 175 (41.3%) performed interventional endoscopy. One hundred and forty-seven (34.7%) had the chance to attend a master in advanced or interventional endoscopy, while 133 (31.4%) faced disadvantages that enabled them to attend. Of the 244 (58%) who reported feeling underappreciated, 194 (79.5%) said it was due to gender bias. We found that women doctors considered themselves disadvantaged compared with men doctors due to career opportunities (n = 338), salary negotiations (n = 64), and training opportunities (n = 144). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, gastroenterology still has a long way to go before approaching greater gender parity.

The joy of surgery: how gender influences surgeons' experiences.

INTRODUCTION: Burnout in medicine is an epidemic, and surgeons are not immune. Studies often focus on negative factors leading to burnout, with less emphasis on optimizing joy. The purpose of this study, conducted by the SAGES Reimagining the Practice of Surgery Task Force, was to explore how gender may influence surgeon well-being to better inform organizational change. METHODS: The study team developed a survey with the domains: facilitators of joy, support for best work, time for work tasks, barriers to joy, and what they would do with more time. The survey was emailed to 5777 addresses on the SAGES distribution list. Results were analyzed by calculating summary statistics. RESULTS: 223 surgeons completed the survey; 62.3% identified as men, 32.3% as women, and 5.4% did not indicate gender. Female compared to male respondents were younger (41.6 vs 52.5 years) and had practiced for fewer years (8.4 vs 19.4 years). The three greatest differences in facilitators of joy were being a leader in the field, leading clinical teams, and teaching, with a > 10 percentage point difference between men/women rating these highly (score of ≥ 8). Women generally perceived less support from their institutions than men. The greatest gender difference was in support for teaching, with 52.8% of men rating this highly compared to 30.2% of women. Only 52% of women felt respected by coworkers most of the time compared to 68.3% of men. Most (96.0%) respondents (men 95.7% and women 98.6%) reported wanting more time with family and friends. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the complexity of the personal and professional factors that influence joy in surgery, highlight gender differences that impact joy and suggests opportunities for improved gender-based support. These results can inform potential organization-level changes and further research to better understand emerging differences in joy across gender identities.

Trends in Gender of Authors of Patient Blood Management Publications.

BACKGROUND: Diverse representation in the field of patient blood management (PBM) may help bring varying perspectives to improve patient care. We assessed trends in gender of first and last authorship of recent PBM publications to evaluate diversity within the field. METHODS: Publications from 10 high-impact anesthesiology and blood transfusion medicine journals between 2017 and 2021 were reviewed using 19 keywords to identify PBM-related articles. Each publication title was reviewed independently to determine whether it met the inclusion criteria. A software program was used to identify the gender of each first and last author for the most common first names. Author gender that could not be identified through this process was determined by querying institutional websites and professional social networks (eg, ResearchGate). Any publication where the gender of the first and/or last author could not be reliably determined was excluded from the analysis. Trends over time were assessed using the Cochran-Armitage test. RESULTS: A total of 2467 publications met the inclusion criteria of the 2873 yielded by the initial search. Gender of the first and last author was identified for 2384 of these publications and included in the final analysis. Approximately 42.8% of publications featured a woman as the first author with the highest from the journals such as the Journal of the American Medical Association ( JAMA ) (48.7%) and Transfusion (48.1%) and the lowest from the journals such as the British Journal of Anaesthesia (24.1%) and Anesthesia & Analgesia (24.4%). Approximately 32.0% of the publications featured a woman as the last author with the highest being Transfusion (36.9%) and Anaesthesia (31.8%) and the lowest being Anesthesia and Analgesia (18.3%) and Anesthesiology (18.6%). Approximately 57.6% of publications had either a woman as the first or last author while 16.3% of the publications had women as both the first and last authors. Women authors comprised 32.6% of the publications with a single author. Women as the first or last authors did not change significantly over the study period ( P = .115 and P = .119, respectively). No significant difference was observed in the percentage of PBM articles with a woman as the first or last author, a woman as the first and last author, or a woman as a single author from 2017 to 2021 ( P = .089, P = .055, and P = .226, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of women as the first and last authors in PBM publications from the 5-year period of 2017 to 2021 was <50%. Gender equity in PBM authorship was identified as an area for potential future improvement. International mentorship and sponsorship of women remain important in promoting gender equity in PBM authorship.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in US Anesthesiology Residency Matching.

BACKGROUND: Patient outcomes are improved with physician-patient gender, racial, and ethnic concordance. However, female, Black, Hispanic or Latino, Native Hawaiian-Pacific Islander (NH-PI), and American Indian-Native Alaskan (AI-AN) physicians are underrepresented in anesthesiology. The American Association of Medical Colleges 2018 Diversity in Medicine Report revealed that women comprise only 35% of anesthesiologists yet nearly half of medical school graduates are women. More than 77% of anesthesiologists are White or Asian. Anesthesiology applicant and match trends may provide insights needed to address underrepresentation within anesthesiology. We hypothesized that proportionally fewer women and racially and ethnically minoritized applicants apply and match into anesthesiology. METHODS: This retrospective observational study identified 47,117 anesthesiology applicants among the 546,298 residency applicants in the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) system between 2011 and 2022 and stratified applicants by self-reported gender, race, and ethnicity. The demographics of anesthesiology trainees reported in the 2014 to 2015, 2018 to 2019, and 2022 to 2023 Accreditation Counsel of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Data Resource Books were used as surrogates for matched applicants as demographics are not reported by the National Residency Match Program. To facilitate comparisons, ERAS applicants were grouped into 4-year epochs to align with consolidated ACGME reports corresponding to the application years. Odds ratios (OR); 95% confidence interval of applying to and matching into anesthesiology were analyzed. RESULTS: Women had lower odds of applying to anesthesiology compared to men overall (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.54-0.56, P < .0001) and maintained significantly lowered odds of applying within each epoch. Women had similar odds of matching into anesthesiology residency compared to men (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.06-1.14, P < .0001). Black, Hispanic or Latino, Asian and NH-PI, and AI-AN applicants had similar odds to White applicants of applying to anesthesiology but odds of matching were significantly lower overall ( P < .0001) for Asian and NH-PI (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.63-0.70), Black (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.45-0.53), Hispanic or Latino (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.46-0.54), and AI-AN (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.15-0.28) applicants. The odds of matching among some minoritized applicants increased in the ACGME 2022 to 2023 report year. CONCLUSIONS: From 2011 to 2022, women had lower odds of applying to anesthesiology residency than men yet had similar odds of matching. Racial and ethnic minoritized groups had significantly lower odds of matching compared to White applicants despite similar odds of applying. These findings highlight disparities in the anesthesiology match and may help identify opportunities to promote workforce diversity within the field. More detailed reporting of gender, race, and ethnicity in annual match data may better define barriers to entry and identify opportunities for improvement.