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.

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.