The Prevalence of Financial Conflict of Interest Disclosures by Endovascular Specialists on X (Twitter).

PURPOSE: To evaluate conflicts of interest (COIs) among interventional radiologists and related specialties who mention specific devices or companies on the social media (SoMe) platform X, formerly Twitter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 13,809 posts between October 7, 2021, and December 31, 2021, on X were evaluated. Posts by U.S. interventional radiologists and related specialties who mentioned a specific device or company were identified. A positive COI was defined as receiving a payment from the device manufacturer or company within 36 months prior to posting. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payment database was used to identify financial payments. The prevalence and value of COIs were assessed and compared between posts mentioning a device or company and a paired control group using descriptive statistics and chi-squared tests and independent t tests. RESULTS: Eighty posts containing the mention of 100 specific devices or companies were evaluated. COIs were present in 53% (53/100). When mentioning a specific device or product, 40% interventional radiologists had a COI, compared with 62% neurosurgeons. Physicians who mentioned a specific device or company were 3.7 times more likely to have a positive COI relative to the paired control group (53/100 vs 14/100; P < .001). Of the 31 physicians with a COI, the median physician received $2,270. None of the positive COIs were disclosed. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians posting on SoMe about a specific device or company were more likely to have a financial COI than authors of posts not mentioning a specific device or company. No disclosure of any COI was present in the posts, limiting followers' ability to weigh potential bias.

NIH funding trends for neurosurgeon-scientists from 1993-2017: Biomedical workforce implications for neurooncology.

INTRODUCTION: Neurosurgeons represent 0.5% of all physicians and currently face a high burden of disease. Physician-scientists are essential to advance the mission of National Academies of Science (NAS) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) through discovery and bench to bedside translation. We investigated trends in NIH neurosurgeon-scientist funding over time as an indicator of physician-scientist workforce training. METHODS: We used NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORTER) to extract grants to neurosurgery departments and neurosurgeons from 1993 to 2017. Manual extraction of each individual grant awardee was conducted. RESULTS: After adjusting for U.S. inflation (base year: 1993), NIH funding to neurosurgery departments increased yearly (P < 0.00001). However, neurosurgeon-scientists received significantly less NIH funding compared to scientists (including basic scientists and research only neurosurgeons) (P = 0.09). The ratio of neurosurgeon-scientists to scientists receiving grants was significantly reduced (P = 0.002). Interestingly, the percentage of oncology-related neurosurgery grants significantly increased throughout the study period (P = 0.002). The average number of grants per neurosurgeon-scientists showed an upward trend (P < 0.001); however, the average number of grants for early-career neurosurgeon-scientists, showed a significant downward trend (P = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Over the past 23 years, despite the overall increasing trends in the number of NIH grants awarded to neurosurgery departments overall, the proportion of neurosurgeon-scientists that were awarded NIH grants compared to scientists demonstrates a declining trend. This observed shift is disproportionate in the number of NIH grants awarded to senior level compared to early-career neurosurgeon-scientists, with more funding allocated towards neurosurgical-oncology-related grants.

Challenges in the Australasian neurosurgery training program: who should be trained and where should they train?

OBJECTIVE: Neurosurgical training poses particular challenges in Australia and New Zealand, given the large landmass, small population, and widely separated, often small, neurosurgical units. Such factors have necessitated a move away from autonomous, single-institution-based training to the selection of trainees by a centralized binational process. The success of this system is based on rigorous standardized evaluation of candidates' academic achievements, anatomical knowledge, references, and interview performance. Similarly, the accreditation of hospitals to train successful candidates has been standardized. The authors review the evolution of trainee selection and the accreditation of training posts in Australia and New Zealand. METHODS: The records of the Neurosurgical Society of Australasia Surgical Education and Training Board were reviewed for documents pertaining to the selection of neurosurgical trainees and the accreditation of training posts. Application records and referee scores from 2014 to the present were reviewed to encompass process changes, in particular the change from written referee reports to standardized interviews of referees. Surgical logbook case numbers for 23 trainees completing training in 2016, 2017, and 2018 were collated and presented in an aggregated, de-identified form as a measure of adherence to accreditation standards. Written evaluations of the training experience were also sought from two trainees reflecting on the selection process, the quality of training posts, and training limitations. RESULTS: While a time-consuming process, the method of obtaining referee reports by interview has resulted in a wider spread of scores, more able to separate high- and low-scoring applicants than other components of the selection process. Review of the training post accreditation records for the last 2 years showed that adherence to standards has resulted in loss of accreditation for one unit and shortened periods of review for units with more minor deficiencies. Two applications for accreditation have been denied. Examination of caseload data showed that trainees more than fulfill minimum requirements in accredited training posts, confirming the robust nature of this aspect of unit accreditation. CONCLUSIONS: A key factor determining the success of neurosurgical training in Australia and New Zealand has been a willingness to evolve selection and other processes to overcome challenges as they become apparent. According to available analyses, the revised referee process and strict accreditation standards appear effective. The benefits and challenges of the current training system are discussed in the context of a paucity of international literature.

Markov modeling for the neurosurgeon: a review of the literature and an introduction to cost-effectiveness research.

OBJECTIVE Markov modeling is a clinical research technique that allows competing medical strategies to be mathematically assessed in order to identify the optimal allocation of health care resources. The authors present a review of the recently published neurosurgical literature that employs Markov modeling and provide a conceptual framework with which to evaluate, critique, and apply the findings generated from health economics research. METHODS The PubMed online database was searched to identify neurosurgical literature published from January 2010 to December 2017 that had utilized Markov modeling for neurosurgical cost-effectiveness studies. Included articles were then assessed with regard to year of publication, subspecialty of neurosurgery, decision analytical techniques utilized, and source information for model inputs. RESULTS A total of 55 articles utilizing Markov models were identified across a broad range of neurosurgical subspecialties. Sixty-five percent of the papers were published within the past 3 years alone. The majority of models derived health transition probabilities, health utilities, and cost information from previously published studies or publicly available information. Only 62% of the studies incorporated indirect costs. Ninety-three percent of the studies performed a 1-way or 2-way sensitivity analysis, and 67% performed a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. A review of the conceptual framework of Markov modeling and an explanation of the different terminology and methodology are provided. CONCLUSIONS As neurosurgeons continue to innovate and identify novel treatment strategies for patients, Markov modeling will allow for better characterization of the impact of these interventions on a patient and societal level. The aim of this work is to equip the neurosurgical readership with the tools to better understand, critique, and apply findings produced from cost-effectiveness research.

Defensive medicine among neurosurgeons in the Netherlands: a national survey.

OBJECTIVE: In defensive medicine, practice is motivated by legal rather than medical reasons. Previous studies have analyzed the correlation between perceived medico-legal risk and defensive behavior among neurosurgeons in the United States, Canada, and South Africa, but not yet in Europe. The aim of this study is to explore perceived liability burdens and self-reported defensive behaviors among neurosurgeons in the Netherlands and compare their practices with their non-European counterparts. METHODS: A survey was sent to 136 neurosurgeons. The survey included questions from several domains: surgeon characteristics, patient demographics, type of practice, surgeon liability profile, policy coverage, defensive practices, and perception of the liability environment. Survey responses were analyzed and summarized. RESULTS: Forty-five neurosurgeons filled out the questionnaire (response rate of 33.1%). Almost half (n = 20) reported paying less than 5% of their income to annual malpractice premiums. Nearly all respondents view their insurance premiums as a minor or no burden (n = 42) and are confident that in their coverage is sufficient (n = 41). Most neurosurgeons (n = 38) do not see patients as "potential lawsuits". CONCLUSIONS: Relative to their American peers, Dutch neurosurgeons view their insurance premiums as less burdensome, their patients as a smaller legal threat, and their practice as less risky in general. They are sued less often and engage in fewer defensive behaviors than their non-European counterparts. The medico-legal climate in the Netherlands may contribute to this difference.

Industry payments to academic neurosurgeons in 2021: an open payments cross-sectional analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The Open Payments Program (OPP) was a database started in 2013 by the US government to report payments made by the medical device and pharmaceutical industry to physicians. Neurosurgery is a technologically advanced field that relies heavily on the latest innovations for complex treatment of its patient population. This study sought to explore the financial relationship between academic neurosurgeons and the industry. METHODS: OPP data were reviewed for the year 2021 of all faculty neurosurgeons affiliated with a neurosurgery residency program. Trends related to general payments, research payments, associated research funding, ownership and investment interest, name of the companies making payments, monetary amount of payments per company, and number of payments per company were analyzed. RESULTS: Industry payments to 1151 US academic neurosurgeons were reviewed. These neurosurgeons received $121.4 million in payments. Three hundred thirty-two companies made 18,466 payments. The average payment per neurosurgeon was approximately six-fold higher than that of all other physicians. Vascular and spine subspecialties received the highest payments. A higher proportion of research money was allocated to the Pacific division, while all other categories (including total amount) were higher in the Eastern US. Most financial contributions were made by a small number of companies. CONCLUSIONS: Neurosurgery has been rated by many as a field fueled by research, innovation, and technology. In 2021, academic neurosurgeons had a strong relationship with the medical device and pharmaceutical industry as reflected in the OPP data. While the true impact on patient care cannot be directly measured, the advancement of the field relies heavily on these collaborations.

Postgraduate Fellowships, Distant Continuing Education, and Funding in Neurosurgical Education.

Neurosurgical education and training are the essential tenets for the development of a sustainable workforce. However, opportunities for training are limited in most parts of the world due to socioeconomic constraints and an inadequate workforce. This global deficit has triggered a huge drive to expand training opportunities. Although training programs are increasing numerically, most of these programs focus on basic residency training with no opportunities for fellowships and continuing education. Herein, we use the Foundation of International Education in Neurological Surgery as a global success model to elucidate on the role of fellowships, distant continuing education, and funding in neurosurgery.

An Analysis of Political Contributions from Neurosurgeons in the United States.

BACKGROUND: As the uncertainty surrounding the future of U.S. health care policy intensifies, political advocacy and campaign contributions have become increasingly relevant. This study describes the trends of political contributions of U.S. neurosurgeons from the years 2003-2019. METHODS: Individual contribution data from 2003-2019 were obtained from the Federal Election Commission website. Contributions were filtered for occupation lines matching either "neurosurg," "neurologic surgeon," or "neurological surgeon." Each contribution is designated to a recipient committee associated with a political candidate or group. The party designations of these committees were used to catalogue donations as "Republican," "Democratic," or "Independent." RESULTS: From 2003-2019 a total of 9242 political donations were made by self-identified neurosurgeons amounting to $8,469,121. Most of these contribution dollars were directed to Independent committees (47.9%). Of all Independent contribution dollars from 2005-2019, 95.9% were directed to the American Association of Neurological Surgeons Political Action Committee. The total number of unique contributions increased from 442 contributions in 2003 to 650 in 2019. Democrats experienced the most substantial increase in support, from 4.8% of all contribution dollars in 2003 to 26.3% in 2019. Republican support was noted to be more widespread across the United States compared with Democratic support. CONCLUSIONS: Political contributions from U.S. neurosurgeons have increased steadily over time. Donations were largely Independent but became increasingly partisan in recent years. Overall, this displays an increase in political involvement among the neurosurgeon community. Future studies are warranted into how this involvement translates to representative health policy.

Single-event multilevel surgery in cerebral palsy: Value added by a co-surgeon.

ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes for single-event multilevel surgery (SEMLS) in cerebral palsy (CP) performed by 1 or 2 attending surgeons.A retrospective review of patients with CP undergoing SEMLS was performed. Patients undergoing SEMLS performed by a single senior surgeon were compared with patients undergoing SEMLS by the same senior surgeon and a consistent second attending surgeon. Due to heterogeneity of the type and quantity of SEMLS procedures included in this study, a scoring system was utilized to stratify patients to low and high surgical burden. The SEMLS events scoring less than 18 points were categorized as low burden surgery and SEMLS scoring 18 or more points were categorized as high burden surgery. Operative time, estimated blood loss, hospital length of stay, and operating room (OR) utilization costs were compared.In low burden SEMLS, 10 patients had SEMLS performed by a single surgeon and 8 patients had SEMLS performed by 2 surgeons. In high burden SEMLS, 10 patients had SEMLS performed by a single surgeon and 12 patients had SEMLS performed by 2 surgeons. For high burden SEMLS, operative time was decreased by a mean of 69 minutes in cases performed by 2 co-surgeons (P = 0.03). Decreased operative time was associated with an estimated savings of $2484 per SEMLS case. In low burden SEMLS, a trend toward decreased operative time was associated for cases performed by 2 co-surgeons (182 vs 221 minutes, P = 0.11). Decreased operative time was associated with an estimated savings of $1404 per low burden SEMLS case. No difference was found for estimated blood loss or hospital length of stay between groups in high and low burden SEMLS.Employing 2 attending surgeons in SEMLS decreased operative time and OR utilization cost, particularly in patients with a high surgical burden. These findings support the practice of utilizing 2 attending surgeons for SEMLS in patients with CP.Level of Evidence: Level III.

Characteristics of Reported Industry Payments to Neurosurgeons: A 5-Year Open Payments Database Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to characterize the payments made by medical industry to neurosurgeons from 2014 to 2018. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2018 of the Open Payments Database. Collected data included the total number of industry payments, the aggregate value of industry payments, and the mean value of each industry payment made to neurosurgeons per year over the 5-year period. RESULTS: A total of 105,150 unique surgeons, with 13,668 (12.99%) unique neurosurgeons, were identified to have received an industry payment during 2014-2018. Neurosurgeons were the second highest industry-paid surgical specialty, with a total 421,151 industry payments made to neurosurgeons, totaling $477,451,070. The mean average paid amount per surgeon was $34,932 (±$936,942). The largest proportion of payments were related to food and beverage (75.5%), followed by travel and lodging (14.9%), consulting fees (3.5%), nonconsulting service fees (2.1%), and royalties or licensing (1.9%), totaling 90.4% of all industry payments to neurologic surgeons. Summed across the 5-year period, the largest paid source types were royalties and licensing (64.0%; $305,517,489), consulting fees (11.8%; $56,445,950), nonconsulting service fees (7.3%; $34,629,109), current or prospective investments (6.8%, $32,307,959), and travel and lodging (4.8%, $22,982,165). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that over the most recent 5-year period (2014-2018) of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Database, there was a decreasing trend of the total number of payments, but an increasing trend of the total amount paid to neurosurgeons.

Industry-Sponsored Research Payments in Neurosurgery-Analysis of the Open Payments Database From 2014 to 2018.

BACKGROUND: The Open Payments Database (OPD) started in 2013 to combat financial conflicts of interest between physicians and medical industry. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the first 5 yr of the OPD regarding industry-sponsored research funding (ISRF) in neurosurgery. METHODS: The Open Payments Research Payments dataset was examined from 2014 to 2018 for payments where the clinical primary investigator identified their specialty as neurosurgery. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2018, a $106.77 million in ISRF was made to 731 neurosurgeons. Fewer than 11% of neurosurgeons received ISRF yearly. The average received $140 000 in total but the median received $30,000. This was because the highest paid neurosurgeon received $3.56 million. A greater proportion ISRF was made to neurosurgeons affiliated with teaching institutions when compared to other specialties (26.74% vs 20.89%, P = .0021). The proportion of the total value of ISRF distributed to neurosurgery declined from 0.43% of payments to all specialties in 2014 to 0.37% in 2018 (P < .001), but no steady decline was observed from year to year. CONCLUSION: ISRF to neurosurgeons comprises a small percentage of research payments made to medical research by industry sponsors. Although a greater percentage of payments are made to neurosurgeons in teaching institutions compared to other specialties, the majority is given to neurosurgeons not affiliated with a teaching institution. A significant percentage of ISRF is given to a small percentage of neurosurgeons. There may be opportunities for more neurosurgeons to engage in industry-sponsored research to advance our field as long as full and complete disclosures can always be made.

The Financial Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Neurosurgery Practice in Spring 2020.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has changed health care delivery across the United States. Few analyses have specifically looked at quantifying the financial impact of the pandemic on practicing neurosurgeons. A survey analysis was performed to address this need. METHODS: A 19-question survey was distributed to practicing neurosurgeons in the United States and its territories. The questions evaluated respondents' assessments of changes in patient and procedural volume, salary and benefits, practice expenses, staffing, applications for government assistance, and stroke management. Responses were stratified by geographic region. RESULTS: The response rate was 5.1% (267/5224). Most respondents from each region noted a >50% decrease in clinic volume. Respondents from the Northeast observed a 76% decrease in procedure volume, which was significantly greater than that of other regions (P = 0.003). Northeast respondents were also significantly more likely to have been reassigned to nonneurosurgical clinical duties during the pandemic (P < 0.001). Most respondents also noted decreased salary and benefits but experienced no changes in overall practice expenses. Most respondents did not experience significant reductions in nursing or midlevel staffing. These trends were not significantly different between regions. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to decreases in patient and procedural volume and physician compensation despite stable practice expenses. Significantly more respondents in the Northeast region noted decreases in procedural volume and reassignment to nonneurosurgical COVID-related medical duties. Future analysis is necessary as the pandemic evolves and the long-term clinical and economic implications become clear.

Gender Differences Between Male and Female Neurosurgeons: Is There Equality for All?

OBJECTIVE: Historically, women have been underrepresented in medicine but nowadays the underrepresentation is more applicable to surgical disciplines. Many efforts have been made to decrease the attrition rate of women in neurosurgery and to even career opportunities to be comparable to those of male colleagues. However, it is unclear if gender disparities occur between female and male neurosurgeons. Therefore, the aim of the current study is to identify gender differences in the professional and private life of neurosurgeons. METHODS: A survey consisting of 38 questions was sent to members of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons regarding demographics, career fulfillment, private life, and parenting. Comparison between female and male respondents was made. RESULTS: A total of 870 members filled in surveys, which were analyzed. Working full time, days worked weekly, and gross salary did not differ between male and female neurosurgeons. However, female neurosurgeons rated their career fulfillment worse than did male neurosurgeons (P < 0.001) and were less likely to choose a career as a neurosurgeon again (P < 0.001). Furthermore, female neurosurgeons were less likely to be married or to have children than were male colleagues (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite efforts to increase the amount of women enrolling into neurosurgery and despite efforts to strive for equality, the results of the current study show gender disparities in professional and private careers among neurosurgeons. Practice patterns did not differ between male and female neurosurgeons, but perceptions of career and characteristics of private life did. Program directors and chairs should focus on measures to decrease gender differences and to strive for equal career satisfaction among female and male neurosurgeons.

Health Care Lobbying, Political Action Committees, and Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze the political contributions and strategies of the Political Action Committee (PACs) lobbying for the political interests of spine surgeons. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In 2016, a presidential election year, $514,224,628 was spent on health care lobbying. Only 16% ($85,061,148) was on behalf of health professionals providing care. Below we chronicle the overlapping contributions between the three different physician-based Political Action Committee (PAC) lobbying entities as it relates specifically to spine surgery. METHODS: Data were abstracted for the PACs of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS), American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), and the North American Spine Society (NASS). These data were obtained using OpenSecrets (opensecrets.org), and the Federal Election Commission (fec.gov) website. All data points were collected biannually from 2006 to 2018 and statistically analyzed as appropriate. RESULTS: In 2016, the AAOS PAC contributed $2,648,218, the AANS PAC $348,091, and the NASS PAC $183,612. After accounting for respective group size, the AAOS spent >2.34 times that of the AANS. Orthopedists were 3.84 times (95% confidence interval 3.42-4.3) more likely to donate to their PAC than neurosurgeons (P < 0.001) during the 2016 election. The majority of contributions among the three different lobbyist organizations were to federal candidates, followed by fundraising committees, and finally to the national party. Eighty-eight percent of AANS donations went to Republican candidates, whereas AAOS and NASS were 63% and 67%, respectively. From 2008 to 2016, the AAOS PAC had a highest political contributions spend per active member of parent organization ($126.39) as compared to AANS ($80.52) and NASS ($17.81). The AAOS had five surgeons for every donor to the AAOS PAC, whereas the AANS had 14 surgeons and NASS 38 members per each donor. The AANS had a higher percentage of Republican donations with 78.9% of donations going to Republicans as compared to 61.8% of AAOS contributions and 67.9% of NASS contributions. CONCLUSION: Spine surgery is unique in that three different physician-based lobbyist organizations seek to influence legislative priorities with the AAOS having the most substantial fiscal impact and greatest participation. Choreography of donation strategies is essential to maximize physician voice at the policy level. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.

Impact of malpractice liability among spine surgeons: A national survey of French private neurosurgeons.

PURPOSE: In the general context of medical judicialization, spine surgeons are impacted by the part that medical responsibility and the risk of malpractice play in their actions and decisions. Our aim was to evaluate possible shifts in practices among private neurosurgeons who are highly exposed to this judicial risk and detect alterations in their pleasure in exercising their profession. We present the first national survey on French physicians' perception of surgical judicialization and consequences on their practice. METHODS: An online survey was submitted to the 121 members of the French Society of Private Neurosurgery, who represent 29.1% of the total number of spine surgeons and perform 36.0% of the national total spine surgery activity. The French law (no-fault out-of-court scheme) significantly impacts these surgeons in the event of litigation. RESULTS: A total of 78 surveys were completed (64.5% response rate): 89.7% of respondents experienced alteration of doctor-patient relationship related to judicialization and 60.2% had already refused to perform risky surgeries. Fear of being sued added negative pressure during surgery for 55.1% of respondents and 37.2% of them had already considered stopping their practice because of this litigation context. CONCLUSION: The increasing impact of medical liability is prompting practitioners to change their practice and perceptions. The doctor-patient relationship appears to be altered, negative pressure is placed on physicians and defensively, some neurosurgeons may refuse high-risk patients and procedures. This situation causes professional disenchantment and can ultimately prove disadvantageous for both doctors and patients.

Education-based Solutions to the Global Burden of Neurosurgical Disease.

OBJECTIVE: Low- and middle-income countries continue to suffer from a lack of access to basic neurosurgical care. The 2015 Lancet Commission on Global Surgery estimated essential surgical care was lacking to 5 billion people and that 143 million essential surgeries were not performed annually. A significant part of this need is neurosurgical care. Countries lacking basic neurosurgical services cannot have a true trauma system, or complete care for tumor, stroke, pain, and congenital defects in children. Episodic service missions from developed countries cannot fill these large gaps. To maximize the impact of global neurosurgery, the framework through which humanitarian neurosurgeons respond to international need should incorporate sustainable practices that empower the recipient population. METHODS: A historical and anecdotal review of global neurosurgery. RESULTS: The success of sustainable, locally championed neurosurgery educational programs will be dependent on the simultaneous, parallel development of anesthesia, critical care, nursing, and biomedical services. Each of these disciplines will reciprocally benefit from these neurosurgical programs. These programs cannot exist in a vacuum. They will require the thoughtful collaboration of all major neurosurgical societies with a humanitarian emphasis while championing the local surgeons in the area of need who must assume leadership to achieve a self-sustaining program. CONCLUSIONS: To meet the global need for neurosurgical care, self-sustaining neurosurgical programs must be locally developed in the countries of need. International support must be built on "Service through Education" rather the service alone.

Emerging Trends in the Neurosurgical Workforce of Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Every year, there are an estimated 22.6 million new neurosurgical consultative cases worldwide, of which 13.8 million require surgery. In 2016, the global neurosurgical workforce was estimated and mapped as open-access information to guide neurosurgeons, affiliates, and policy makers. We present a subsequent investigation for mapping the global neurosurgical workforce for 2018 to show the replicability of previous data collection methods as well as to show any changes in workforce density. METHODS: We extracted data on the absolute number of neurosurgeons per low and middle-income countries (LMICs) in 2016 from the database of the global neurosurgical workforce mapping project. The estimated number of neurosurgeons in each LMIC during 2018 was obtained from collaborators. The median workforce densities were calculated for 2016 and 2018. Neurosurgical workforce density heat maps were generated. RESULTS: We received data from 119 countries (response rate 86.2%) and imputed data for 19 countries (13.8%). Seventy-eight (56.5%, N = 138) countries had an increase in their number of neurosurgeons, 9 (6.5%) showed a decrease, whereas 51 (37.0%) had the same number of neurosurgeons in both years. The pooled median increased from 0.17 (interquartile range, 0.54) in 2016 to 0.18 (interquartile range, 0.59) in 2018. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the density of the neurosurgical workforce has increased from 2016 to 2018. However, at the current rate, 80 LMICs (58.0%) will not meet the neurosurgical workforce density target by 2030.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Neurosurgical Practice in India: Results of an Anonymized National Survey.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has created an unprecedented challenge for medical professionals throughout the world to tackle the rapidly changing scenario. The objective of this survey was to analyze the change in neurosurgical practice in India following the COVID-19 outbreak and assess its impact on practising neurosurgeons. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between May 7th and 23rd, 2020, a validated questionnaire was circulated amongst practising neurosurgeons across the country by social media and e-mails, regarding changes in the patterns of patients seen, adaptations made in their practice, effect on surgeries performed, financial burden, and impact on their personal lives. The responses were kept anonymous and were analyzed for correlations between the changes observed and independent factors such as hospital affiliations, teaching professions, and neurosurgical experience. RESULTS: Our survey showed a drastic fall in the number of neurosurgical patients seen in the outpatient department (OPD) as well as the number of surgeries performed. A drop of 76.25% was seen in OPD patients (P = 0.000) and that of 70.59% in surgeries performed (P = 0.000). There was no uniformity among the neurosurgeons in the number of COVID-19 tests being done before elective/emergency surgery and in the use of protective gear while examining patients. Private practitioners were more affected financially as compared to those in the government sector. The pandemic has affected the research work of 53.23% of all respondents, with those in the teaching profession (70.96%) more affected than those in the non-teaching profession (24.67%). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based policies, screening COVID-19 tests with better sensitivity, and better-quality personal protective equipment kits in adequate numbers are required to protect our medical professionals from COVID-19. Mental health issues among neurosurgeons may also be an issue, this being a high risk speciality and should be closely watched for.

Investigating the Gender Pay Gap in Industry Contributions to Academic Neurosurgeons.

BACKGROUND: A large gender gap exists in industry funding for academic neurosurgeons. Selection criteria for funding distribution remain unclear. However, academic rank, scholarly productivity, and experience have been suggested as determining factors. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of industry payments to US academic neurosurgeons. We used online faculty listings to determine academic rank and gender, then used the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payment Database to identify industry contributions. Details were collected on H-index and length of time in practice was used as a proxy for experience. RESULTS: Of the 1481 academic neurosurgeons included, men were in the majority (91% vs. 9%, P = 0.0001). Relative to their male colleagues, female assistant and associate professors received fewer payments (4 vs. 8, P = 0.0040; 2 vs. 7, P = 0.0067) at lower median values ($409 vs. $437, P = 0.0490; $163 vs. $260, P = 0.0089). H-index was more strongly associated with general payment receipt for women academic neurosurgeons (r = 0.20, P = 0.0201) than men academic neurosurgeons (r = 0.06, P = 0.0301). Experience trended toward a significant association with industry funding in men (r = 0.05, P = 0.0601). After adjustment for scholarly productivity and experience, gender-based funding inequalities became insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: In academic neurosurgery, substantial gender disparities exist in industry payments and metrics of academic success. There may be an industry selection bias toward recruitment of key opinion and thought leaders, as identified by scholarly productivity and experience. Despite the objective gender inequalities, industry funding to academic neurosurgeons appears to be equitable when metrics of academic success are considered.