Is Gender Equity Possible in Academic Medicine or Are There More Useful Goals on Which to Focus?

Janet Bickel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2020.8439

2020-08-01

Abstract:Journal of Women's Health, Ahead of Print. <br/>

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Achieving Gender and Social Equality: More Than Gender Parity Is Needed

Anita Raj,Tina Kumra,Gary L Darmstadt,Karen M Freund

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002877

Abstract:In this Perspective, the authors review Association of American Medical Colleges data on gender parity and intersectionality, consider the literature on gender parity in academic medicine and the underlying gender norms that explain these statistics, and offer recommendations for moving past indicators of parity to achieve gender and social equality.Improvements in gender parity among medical school graduates have not translated to gender parity among practicing physicians or medical school faculty, particularly for racial/ethnic minorities. Further, gender parity does not correspond to gender equality, such that gender-based disparities in salaries and advancement persist. In addition, social norms related to traditional gender role expectations reinforce existing biases and lead to sexual harassment and discrimination against women in the workplace.Building on their analysis of existing data and the literature, the authors offer concrete recommendations to achieve gender equality in academic medicine that not only improve parity but also support policies and practices to address the norms that further bias and discrimination. These recommendations include the collection, monitoring, and open reporting of data on salaries as well as on sex and race/ethnicity; stronger policies related to family leave and sexual discrimination and harassment; and accountability structures to ensure that policies are enforced. While these efforts alone cannot eliminate gender inequalities, academic medicine should be at the forefront of creating a climate in medicine that is supportive of gender equality as part of their larger goal of promoting social equality.
Eliminating Gender-Based Bias in Academic Medicine: More Than Naming the "Elephant in the Room"

Anna U Morgan,Krisda H Chaiyachati,Gary E Weissman,Joshua M Liao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-018-4411-0

Abstract:Gender-based discrimination and bias are widespread in professional settings, including academic medicine. Overt manifestations such as sexual harassment have long been identified but attention is only more recently turning towards subtler forms of bias, including inequity in promotion and compensation. Barriers to progress vary across institutions and include lack of awareness, inadequate training, poor informational transparency, and challenging power dynamics. We propose five solutions that the academic medical community can adopt to not only name, but also address, gender-based bias as the proverbial elephant in the room: definitively identify the systemic nature of the problem, prompt those with influence and power to advance a culture of equity, broadly incorporate evidence-based explicit anti-sexist training, increase transparency of information related to professional development and compensation, and use robust research methods to study the drivers and potential solutions of gender inequity within academic medicine. While implementing these proposals is no small task, doing so is an important step in helping the academic medical community become more just.
Gender Equity in Medicine and Dermatology in the United States: The Long Road Traveled and the Journey ahead

Janell M Tully,Jenny E Murase,Jane M Grant-Kels,Dedee F Murrell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.det.2022.08.007

Abstract:Over the past 50 years there has been an increase in the representation of women in medicine with similar rates of men and women graduating from medical training today. Nevertheless, gender gaps in leadership, research publications, and compensation persist. Herein, we review trends in gender differences among leadership positions in academic medicine with a particular focus on dermatology, evaluate the roles of mentorship, motherhood, and gender bias on gender equity, and discuss constructive solutions for addressing gender inequities that persist in academic medicine today.
Gender equity in academic dermatology: Problems aplenty, yet paths ahead

Sophie Walter,Dedee F Murrell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.20027

Abstract:Efforts to achieve gender equity of health professionals should be a priority in all fields of medicine, including academic dermatology. This review aimed, first, to summarize available evidence about the status of gender equity in various domains of academic dermatology-headship positions, salary, editor and editorial board appointments, publications, conference presentations, receipt of research grants and academic prizes-second, to identify challenges to achieving gender equity and, third, to articulate the components of a multifaceted strategy for gender parity. A variety of databases were searched. Manual searching of reference lists and searching of grey literature were also undertaken. It was found that, despite improvements in some domains, the gender inequity persists in all of the above-mentioned areas of academic dermatology. Challenges to achieve gender parity include time in pregnancy, disproportionate participation in childrearing and domestic tasks compared with men, suboptimal legislation in many jurisdictions for parenting and childcare leave, and unconscious biases about women. Elements of a multipronged approach include strengthening women's dermatology societies that advocate for women in academia; celebrating the careers of distinguished female academic dermatologists; mentoring; promoting leadership courses; striving for a greater representation of women among editors-in-chief, authors, and conference presenters, among others; seeking better pay, leave conditions and other work entitlements; conducting high-quality research about gender inequity in academic dermatology; imposing sanctions for violations of gender equity; supporting dermatologists' health; and learning from the experience of other fields of academic medicine.
Fixing the leaky pipeline: Tips to promote gender equity in Academic Medicine

Dora J. Stadler,Halah Ibrahim,Joseph Cofrancesco Jr,Sophia Archuleta

DOI: https://doi.org/10.29060/taps.2021-6-4/gp2451

2021-10-05

The Asia Pacific Scholar

Abstract:Introduction: Gender equity in academic medicine is a global concern. Women physicians lag behind men in salary, research productivity, and reaching top academic rank and leadership positions. Methods: In this Global Perspective, we provide suggestions for overcoming gender bias, drawn from a multidisciplinary literature and personal experiences working as clinician educators in the international academic arena. These suggestions are not exhaustive but inform a tool kit for institutions and individuals to support the advancement of women in academic medicine. Results: Barriers include limited access to same gender role models and mentors, fewer networking opportunities, fewer nominations for awards and speakership opportunities, as well as implicit gender bias. Institutional interventions can address disparities along the career continuum focusing on scholarship, promotion and leadership opportunities. Women faculty can also seek out professional development programmes and mentorship to support their own advancement. Informal and formal networking opportunities, using a variety of platforms, including social media, can help build relationships to enhance career development and success, and provide social, emotional and professional support to women at all stages of their career. The National University Health System’s Women in Science and Healthcare project is an example of a successful group formed to empower women and foster personal and professional development. Conclusion: Successful incentives and policies need to consider local institutional and cultural contexts, as well as approaches to mitigate implicit bias. Achieving gender parity in academic medicine will promote a personally and professionally fulfilled global healthcare workforce to improve patient care and clinical outcomes worldwide.

English Else
Perspectives From Students and Faculty on How Women Achieve Leadership Roles in Academic Medicine: An Exploratory Qualitative Study

Candace J Chow,Meganne N Ferrel,Emily M Graham,Megan L Fix

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.57969

2024-04-10

Cureus

Abstract:Introduction: The glass ceiling in academic medicine has resulted in lower pay and fewer career advancement opportunities for women. Creating change relies on preparing early-career women for positions of leadership, but most leadership programs focus on faculty, not trainees. The present exploratory qualitative study investigates how to prepare women medical students to be leaders in academic medicine. Methods: Focus groups with medical students and faculty who identify as women were conducted at an academic medical center in the West. A total of 25 individuals (10 students and 15 faculty) participated. Recordings of focus groups were transcribed and coded using thematic analysis until saturation of themes was achieved. Findings: Codes were organized into three themes: obstacles, support systems, and self-presentation. Obstacles identified included the subthemes microaggressions, macroaggressions, a lack of female role models in leadership, and personal characteristics such as the ability to self-promote and remain resilient. Support systems included sponsorship, allyship, mentorship, networking, and gender-specific role modeling subthemes. Self-presentation involved learning behaviors for demonstrating leadership and exuding confidence, being strategic about career moves, resiliency, and navigating social norms. Conclusions: The key themes of obstacles, support systems, and self-presentation are targets for systemic and individualistic improvement in leadership development.
From gender bias to gender awareness in medical education

Petra Verdonk,Yvonne W. M. Benschop,Hanneke C. J. M. de Haes,Toine L. M. Lagro-Janssen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-008-9100-z

IF: 3.629

2008-02-15

Advances in Health Sciences Education

Abstract:Gender is an essential determinant of health and illness. Gender awareness in doctors contributes to equity and equality in health and aims towards better health for men and women. Nevertheless, gender has largely been ignored in medicine. First, it is stated that medicine was ‘gender blind’ by not considering gender whenever relevant. Secondly, medicine is said to be ‘male biased’ because the largest body of knowledge on health and illness is about men and their health. Thirdly, gender role ideology negatively influences treatment and health outcomes. Finally, gender inequality has been overlooked as a determinant of health and illness. The uptake of gender issues in medical education brings about specific challenges for several reasons. For instance, the political-ideological connotations of gender issues create resistance especially in traditionalists in medical schools. Secondly, it is necessary to clarify which gender issues must be integrated in which domains. Also, some are interdisciplinary issues and as such more difficult to integrate. Finally, schools need assistance with implementation. The integration of psychosocial issues along with biomedical ones in clinical cases, the dissemination of literature and education material, staff education, and efforts towards structural embedding of gender in curricula are determining factors for successful implementation. Gender equity is not a spontaneous process. Medical education provides specific opportunities that may contribute to transformation for medical schools educate future doctors for future patients in future settings. Consequently, future benefits legitimize the integration of gender as a qualitative investment in medical education.

education & educational research,education, scientific disciplines,health care sciences & services
The gendered realities and talent management imperatives of women physicians

Timothy Hoff,Sarah Scott

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0000000000000069

Abstract:Introduction: U.S. medicine is increasingly a gender-balanced profession with half of all medical school graduates now female. Despite this reality and the potentially transformative nature of a large female physician cohort in U.S. health care, there is less examination of their workplace realities and the key talent management strategies for health care organizations employing women physicians. Purpose: First, we identify current knowledge about U.S. women physician satisfaction, role challenges, and work tradeoffs. Gender theory is used to help interpret these workplace realities. Second, we use this information to identify talent management strategies health care organizations might consider to mitigate the realities and provide greater support for women physicians. Methods: To facilitate our analysis, we conducted a narrative review of published research that includes analysis focused on U.S. women physicians for the time period 2006-2014. Applying ideas from gender theory, we extrapolated key findings from that research related to three issues: satisfaction, role challenges, and tradeoffs. Then we synthesized the findings to identify general talent management strategies that could address these dynamics proactively while enhancing recruitment and retention with respect to women physicians. Findings: U.S. women physicians express strong levels of satisfaction, particularly with their careers, at the same time they continue to experience gender-based inequities, role challenges, and lack of work-life balance in their chosen specialty fields. Lack of suitable role models and appropriate mentoring for women physicians, in addition to barriers to career advancement, are also prevalent across different medical specialties. Conclusion: Similar to other occupations and industries, gender-based inequities and role strains are very real issues for women physicians. Health care organizations must acknowledge these issues and employ effective talent management strategies aimed at women doctors if they are to be viewed as an employer of choice by this increasingly important occupational cohort.
Women in Medicine: The Limits of Individualism in Academic Medicine

Malika Sharma,Shail Rawal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000004458

2022-03-01

Abstract:In the 21st century, more than ever before, issues facing women in medicine, such as pay equity and workplace harassment, are being explored and attended to by physicians and health care institutions. Discussions about women in medicine almost exclusively center around women physicians, even though most women in medicine are, in fact, not physicians. In addition, these discussions typically focus on gender, often failing to consider how race, class, and other dimensions of identity influence the experiences of women in medicine. In this article, the authors argue that neoliberal feminism is the dominant strand of feminism in the discourse of women in medicine. With its focus on the individual and a conception of success defined in largely economic terms, neoliberal feminism fails to consider the broader conditions in which women are situated and, therefore, limits structural criticism and the possibility for all women to engage in social justice. The authors suggest that the pandemic is an opportunity to pursue a more expansive vision of feminism in medicine. They propose intersectional feminism as a theoretical framework that can widen the understanding of what is possible: moving from individual actions resulting in incremental change to collective action that can transform systems. Intersectional feminism enables a push for structures, institutions, and practices that support all workers, including basic income, labor protections, public childcare, accessible health care, transportation justice, and migrant rights. In so doing, intersectional feminism calls for solidarity with and among women both within and outside of medicine.
Gender Differences of Endowed Professorship in Obstetrics and Gynecology Departments at Top Academic Institutions [A72]

Colin B. Russell,Courtney Burns,Kent Griffith,Timothy R. Johnson,Reshma Jagsi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aog.0000826616.91649.ed

2022-05-01

Abstract:INTRODUCTION: Barriers to gender equality permeate academic medicine. A recent study demonstrated that women are less likely to hold endowed professorships in internal medicine from top schools. Given the resources and prestige that accompany endowed professorships, this designation can gauge diversity within medicine’s leaders. We assessed endowed professorships within obstetrics and gynecology departments at leading American medical schools. METHODS: Obstetrics and gynecology faculty lists were obtained from the top 25 academic institutions, as determined by 2020 National Institutes of Health (NIH) ranking. Data on faculty position, endowed professorship/chair, gender, graduate degrees held, graduation year, publication and citation numbers, H-index, and NIH funding as a principal investigator were collected from departments or publicly available sources (e.g., institutional websites, Scopus [Elsevier], NIH Reporter). Multivariable regression models were constructed to explain holding endowed professorships. RESULTS: Of the 680 total professors, 400 (58.8%) were women and 280 (41.2%) were men. From these groups, 64 (49.2%) women and 66 (50.8%) men held endowed professorships. On multivariable analysis, there were no significant differences between men and women in attainment of endowed professorships ( P =.83). Faculty with non-MD doctorates ( P =.006) and rank of associate professor ( P <.001) were less likely to have endowed chairs. Those in the top two quartiles of number of publications ( P <.001) and in the highest funding quartile ( P =.004) were more likely to have endowed professorships. Endowed professorships were not significantly related to decade of graduation ( P =.86). CONCLUSION: Despite previous findings of gender inequity among endowed professorships from internal medicine departments, obstetrics and gynecology departments at leading institutions show no significant role of gender at the level of endowed chairs.

obstetrics & gynecology
Commitment to inclusion: The importance of collaboration in gender equity work

Jennifer K Lee,Rachel B Levine,David M Yousem,Nauder Faraday,Kimberly A Skarupski,Masaru Ishii,E L Daugherty Biddison,Maria Oliva-Hemker

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17455057241252574

Abstract:Despite decades of faculty professional development programs created to prepare women for leadership, gender inequities persist in salary, promotion, and leadership roles. Indeed, men still earn more than women, are more likely than women to hold the rank of professor, and hold the vast majority of positions of power in academic medicine. Institutions demonstrate commitment to their faculty's growth by investing resources, including creating faculty development programs. These programs are essential to help prepare women to lead and navigate the highly matrixed, complex systems of academic medicine. However, data still show that women persistently lag behind men in their career advancement and salary. Clearly, training women to adapt to existing structures and norms alone is not sufficient. To effectively generate organizational change, leaders with power and resources must commit to gender equity. This article describes several efforts by the Office of Faculty in the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine to broaden inclusivity in collaborative work for gender equity. The authors are women and men leaders in the Office of Faculty, which is within the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine dean's office and includes Women in Science and Medicine. Here, we discuss potential methods to advance gender equity using inclusivity based on our institutional experience and on the findings of other studies. Ongoing data collection to evaluate programmatic outcomes in the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine will be reported in the future.
Ivory tower in MD/PhD programmes: sticky floor, broken ladder and glass ceiling

Achint Lail,Jeffrey Ding,Brayden K Leyva,Sabeena Jalal,Sunny Nakae,Saleh Fares,Faisal Khosa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/leader-2024-001003

2024-08-05

Abstract:Objective: Achieving gender equity in academic medicine is not only a matter of social justice but also necessary in promoting an innovative and productive academic community. The purpose of this study was to assess gender distribution in dual MD/PhD academic programme faculty members across North America. Methods: Academic metrics were analysed to quantify the relative career success of academic faculty members in MD/PhD programmes. Measured parameters included academic and leadership ranks along with nominal research factors such as peer-reviewed research publications, H-index, citation number and years of active research. Results: Χ² analysis revealed a statistically significant (p<0.0001, χ²=114.5) difference in the gender distribution of faculty and leadership across North American MD/PhD programmes. Men held 74.2% of full professor positions, 64% of associate professor positions, 59.4% of assistant professor positions and 62.8% of lecturer positions. Moreover, men occupied a larger share of faculty leadership roles with a statistically significant disparity across all ranks (p<0.001, χ²=20.4). A higher proportion of men held positions as department chairs (79.6%), vice chairs (69.1%) and programme leads (69.4%). Conclusion: Gender disparity was prevalent in the MD/PhD programmes throughout North America with women achieving a lower degree of professional stature than men. Ultimately, steps must be taken to support women faculty to afford them better opportunities for academic and professional advancement.
The Role of Obstetrics and Gynecology in Shaping Sex-diverse Leadership in Medicine

Abigail Ford Winkel,Nadine T. Katz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/grf.0000000000000871

2024-04-26

Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract:Sex inequity persists in academic medicine. This article reviews the historical context, ongoing leadership challenges, and societal biases. The persistent barriers to sex equity in leadership roles, pay, and professional recognition are considered through the lens of obstetrics and gynecology where these issues persist despite a significant presence of women in the field. The impact of sex stereotypes, the role of intersectionality, and the need for systemic change are evident. Embracing diverse leadership styles and creating inclusive pathways to leadership will help actualize the potential benefits of a sex-diverse workforce, enhancing health care outcomes and fostering innovation.

obstetrics & gynecology
Association of Physician Characteristics With Perceptions and Experiences of Gender Equity in an Academic Internal Medicine Department

Shannon M Ruzycki,Georgina Freeman,Aleem Bharwani,Allison Brown

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.15165

2019-11-01

Abstract:Importance: The persistence of inequities that disadvantage women physicians remains empirically underexplained. Understanding the cultural factors that are associated with disparities in harassment, discrimination, remuneration, and career trajectory are critical to addressing inequities. Objectives: To explore how physicians perceive the climate for women physicians and compare perceptions and experiences of gender inequity among physicians based on characteristics including gender, faculty status, parental status, and years in practice. Design, setting, and participants: This sequential, explanatory, mixed-methods qualitative study used the Culture Conducive to Women's Academic Success (CCWAS; range 45-225, with higher scores indicating better perceived culture toward women), followed by individual semistructured interviews with physicians at the Department of Medicine of the University of Calgary. All 389 physician members of the Department of Medicine, including academic and clinical physicians and those of any gender, were invited to participate in the survey and interview phases. Main outcomes and measures: The culture within the department for women physicians was assessed using the CCWAS score. Scores were compared between respondents' gender and years in practice. Interviews with physicians were used to further explore findings from the CCWAS and to understand experiences and perceptions of gender disparities. Results: A total of 169 of 389 physicians completed the survey (response rate, 43.4%; 102 [59.9%] women; 65 [38.9%] men; and 2 [1.2%] who did not disclose gender); 28 participants (7.2%) elected to participate in an interview (22 [78.6%] women; 6 [21.4%] men). Women physicians perceived the culture of the department toward women as significantly worse than men physicians (median [interquartile range] CCWAS score, 137.0 [118.0-155.0] vs 164.5 [154.0-183.4]; P < .001). Physicians with more than 15 years in practice perceived the culture toward women as significantly more favorable than physicians with 15 years or less in practice (median [interquartile range] CCWAS score, 157.0 [138.8-181.3] vs 147.0 [127.5-164.3]; P = .02). Qualitative data demonstrated that experiences of junior women (ie, physicians who graduated medical school after 1996, when an equal number of men and women in medical school was achieved in Canada) and perceptions of senior men (ie, those who graduated before 1996) were most different; junior women reported high rates of discrimination and harassment, while senior men perceived that the Department of Medicine had achieved gender equity. Conclusions and relevance: In this study, senior men physicians' perceptions of gender equity were different from lived experiences of gender inequity reported by junior women physicians. This demographic mismatch between perceptions and experiences of gender equity in medicine may explain the lack of action by leaders and decision-makers in medicine to mitigate disparities.
Global evidence of gender equity in academic health research: a scoping review

Andrea C Tricco,Vera Nincic,Nazia Darvesh,Patricia Rios,Paul A Khan,Marco M Ghassemi,Heather MacDonald,Fatemeh Yazdi,Yonda Lai,Rachel Warren,Alyssa Austin,Olga Cleary,Nancy N Baxter,Karen E A Burns,Douglas Coyle,Janet A Curran,Ian D Graham,Gillian Hawker,France Légaré,Jennifer Watt,Holly O Witteman,Jocalyn P Clark,Ivy L Bourgeault,Jeanna Parsons Leigh,Sofia B Ahmed,Karen Lawford,Alice B Aiken,Etienne V Langlois,Christopher McCabe,Sasha Shepperd,Becky Skidmore,Reena Pattani,Natalie Leon,Jamie Lundine,Évèhouénou Lionel Adisso,Wafa El-Adhami,Sharon E Straus

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067771

IF: 3.006

2023-02-17

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objectives To chart the global literature on gender equity in academic health research. Design Scoping review. Participants Quantitative studies were eligible if they examined gender equity within academic institutions including health researchers. Primary and secondary outcome measures Outcomes related to equity across gender and other social identities in academia: (1) faculty workforce: representation of all genders in university/faculty departments, academic rank or position and salary; (2) service: teaching obligations and administrative/non-teaching activities; (3) recruitment and hiring data: number of applicants by gender, interviews and new hires for various rank; (4) promotion: opportunities for promotion and time to progress through academic ranks; (5) academic leadership: type of leadership positions, opportunities for leadership promotion or training, opportunities to supervise/mentor and support for leadership bids; (6) scholarly output or productivity: number/type of publications and presentations, position of authorship, number/value of grants or awards and intellectual property ownership; (7) contextual factors of universities; (8) infrastructure; (9) knowledge and technology translation activities; (10) availability of maternity/paternity/parental/family leave; (11) collaboration activities/opportunities for collaboration; (12) qualitative considerations: perceptions around promotion, finances and support. Results Literature search yielded 94 798 citations; 4753 full-text articles were screened, and 562 studies were included. Most studies originated from North America (462/562, 82.2%). Few studies (27/562, 4.8%) reported race and fewer reported sex/gender (which were used interchangeably in most studies) other than male/female (11/562, 2.0%). Only one study provided data on religion. No other PROGRESS-PLUS variables were reported. A total of 2996 outcomes were reported, with most studies examining academic output (371/562, 66.0%). Conclusions Reviewed literature suggest a lack in analytic approaches that consider genders beyond the binary categories of man and woman, additional social identities (race, religion, social capital and disability) and an intersectionality lens examining the interconnection of multiple social identities in understanding discrimination and disadvantage. All of these are necessary to tailor strategies that promote gender equity. Trial registration number Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/8wk7e/.

medicine, general & internal
Addressing Gender-Based Disparities in Earning Potential in Academic Medicine

Eva Catenaccio,Jonathan M. Rochlin,Harold K. Simon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.0067

2022-02-18

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:Importance: Gender-based disparities in compensation in academic medicine are recognized, but their estimated impacts on early career earning potential and strategies to mitigate them have not been well studied.Objectives: To compare earning potential between female and male academic physicians in the first 10 years of posttraining employment and to evaluate the estimated impact of promotion timing, starting salary, and salary growth rate on earning potential.Design, Setting, and Participants: Using publicly available mean debt and compensation data for full-time employed academic physicians in the US from 2019 to 2020, starting salary, salary in year 10 of employment, annual salary growth rate, and overall earning potential in the first 10 years of employment were estimated for each gender by subspecialty. The estimated impacts of promotion timing and potential interventions, including equalizing starting salaries and annual salary growth rates, were modeled. Data analysis was performed from March to May 2021.Exposures: Gender and subspecialty.Main Outcomes and Measures: Starting salary, annual salary growth rate, year-10 salary, and earning potential in first 10 years of employment.Results: This cross-sectional study included compensation data from 24 593 female and 29 886 male academic physicians across 45 subspecialties. Women had lower starting salaries in 42 of 45 subspecialties (93%), year-10 salaries in 43 of 45 subspecialties (96%), mean annual salary growth rates in 22 of 45 subspecialties (49%), and earning potential in 43 of 45 subspecialties (96%) (median [IQR], $214 440 [$130 423-$384 954], or 10%, less). A 1-year delay in promotion from assistant to associate professor reduced women's earning potential by a median (IQR) of $26 042 ($19 672-$35 671), but failure to be promoted at all reduced it by a median (IQR) of $218 724 ($176 317-$284 466). Equalizing starting salaries could increase women's earning potential by a median (IQR) of $250 075 ($161 299-$381 799) in the subspecialties for which starting salaries for women were lower than those for men. Equalizing annual salary growth rates could increase women's earning potential by a median (IQR) of $53 661 ($24 258-$102 892) in the subspecialties for which mean annual salary growth rates were lower for women than for men.Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that gender-based disparities in starting salary and early career earning potential are pervasive in academic medicine in the US. Equalizing starting salaries would address the majority of the differences in earning potential.

medicine, general & internal
Satisfaction of Women Faculty in Academic Medicine

Linda H Chaudron,Valerie Dandar,Diana Lautenberger,Sarah A Bunton,Lynn K Gordon,Elizabeth H Ellinas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2023.0152

Abstract:Purpose: Research about academic medicine women faculty has focused on comparisons of men and women or specific groups who achieved leadership. To better understand the low percentages of women in academic medicine leadership, attention should be paid to the career continuum within genders. Study findings will inform policies and programs to support women in building careers and acquiring leadership positions. Materials and Methods: Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) StandPoint Faculty Engagement Survey data are used to describe and compare women assistant, associate and full professors' perceptions of (1) career development and advancement opportunities, and (2) a culture and climate that fosters diversity, equity, and inclusion. Specific similarities and differences with men are highlighted. Results: Fifty-nine percent of women respondents were assistant, 25% associate, and 16% full professors. Associate professors of both genders were the least satisfied on the main measures. Women were less satisfied than men at each career stage across the majority of variables. Among women, fewer than half of full and associate professors, and 52% of assistant professors believe they can express their opinions without fear of retribution. While the majority at all ranks (69%-75%) report feeling respected in the workplace, among those who did not, the highest percentage of disrespect based on gender was among associate professors. Conclusions: The perceptions of >7,500 academic medicine women faculty, representing different generations and ranks, underscore the need to broadly address gender inequity and sexism throughout the career continuum. It identifies the mid-career stage as a challenging experience for both men and women. Women, especially at the associate professor rank, remain a critically dissatisfied and underresourced group that is at risk for underutilization and potentially exit from academic medicine. All ranks of women need career development and equitable policies to support their sense of belonging and career advancement.
Exploring Gender Bias in Six Key Domains of Academic Science: An Adversarial Collaboration

Shulamit Kahn,Stephen J. Ceci,Wendy M. Williams

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/15291006231163179

2023-04-26

Psychological Science in the Public Interest

Abstract:We synthesized the vast, contradictory scholarly literature on gender bias in academic science from 2000 to 2020. In the most prestigious journals and media outlets, which influence many people’s opinions about sexism, bias is frequently portrayed as an omnipresent factor limiting women’s progress in the tenure-track academy. Claims and counterclaims regarding the presence or absence of sexism span a range of evaluation contexts. Our approach relied on a combination of meta-analysis and analytic dissection. We evaluated the empirical evidence for gender bias in six key contexts in the tenure-track academy: (a) tenure-track hiring, (b) grant funding, (c) teaching ratings, (d) journal acceptances, (e) salaries, and (f) recommendation letters. We also explored the gender gap in a seventh area, journal productivity, because it can moderate bias in other contexts. We focused on these specific domains, in which sexism has most often been alleged to be pervasive, because they represent important types of evaluation, and the extensive research corpus within these domains provides sufficient quantitative data for comprehensive analysis. Contrary to the omnipresent claims of sexism in these domains appearing in top journals and the media, our findings show that tenure-track women are at parity with tenure-track men in three domains (grant funding, journal acceptances, and recommendation letters) and are advantaged over men in a fourth domain (hiring). For teaching ratings and salaries, we found evidence of bias against women; although gender gaps in salary were much smaller than often claimed, they were nevertheless concerning. Even in the four domains in which we failed to find evidence of sexism disadvantaging women, we nevertheless acknowledge that broad societal structural factors may still impede women’s advancement in academic science. Given the substantial resources directed toward reducing gender bias in academic science, it is imperative to develop a clear understanding of when and where such efforts are justified and of how resources can best be directed to mitigate sexism when and where it exists.

psychology, multidisciplinary
Equal Pay for Equal Work in the Dean Suite: Addressing Occupational Gender Segregation and Compensation Inequities Among Medical School Leadership

Amy S Gottlieb,Valerie M Dandar,Diana M Lautenberger,Cynthia Best,Reshma Jagsi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005087

2023-03-01

Abstract:In 2022, the Association of American Medical Colleges published data from its annual Dean's Office Staff Compensation and Dean's Compensation Surveys in a new report addressing salary equity among medical school leadership. These data, disaggregated by gender and race/ethnicity, represent earnings of the senior most leaders in the dean suite and have historically been shared only with medical school Deans and principal business officers. The report shows that the highest-ranking decanal positions in U.S. medical schools are filled along the lines of traditional gender stereotypes (with men in clinical affairs and research affairs deanships and women in admissions, diversity affairs, faculty affairs, and student affairs deanships) and that the roles held mostly by men carry grander titles (e.g., senior associate dean vs assistant dean) and significantly higher salaries than those typically held by women. Additionally, within the same decanal positions, women earn lower median compensation than men. In this commentary, the authors describe limited advancement and lower compensation as foregone conclusions for women in medicine and science due to a professional model that places a premium on activities traditionally pursued by men. They define and characterize the impact of this occupational gender segregation in the dean suite and offer a roadmap for an alternative value system that recognizes complementary leadership activities across the mission areas of academic medicine and ensures that the contributions of women in the profession are appropriately recognized, valued, and rewarded.
Science and Sex—A Bold Agenda for Women’s Health

Paula A. Johnson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.0174

2024-03-18

JAMA Internal Medicine

Abstract:This Viewpoint examines why investigators should address women’s health in all biomedical and health-related research.

medicine, general & internal

Is Gender Equity Possible in Academic Medicine or Are There More Useful Goals on Which to Focus?

Achieving Gender and Social Equality: More Than Gender Parity Is Needed

Eliminating Gender-Based Bias in Academic Medicine: More Than Naming the "Elephant in the Room"

Gender Equity in Medicine and Dermatology in the United States: The Long Road Traveled and the Journey ahead

Gender equity in academic dermatology: Problems aplenty, yet paths ahead

Fixing the leaky pipeline: Tips to promote gender equity in Academic Medicine

Perspectives From Students and Faculty on How Women Achieve Leadership Roles in Academic Medicine: An Exploratory Qualitative Study

From gender bias to gender awareness in medical education

The gendered realities and talent management imperatives of women physicians

Women in Medicine: The Limits of Individualism in Academic Medicine

Gender Differences of Endowed Professorship in Obstetrics and Gynecology Departments at Top Academic Institutions [A72]

Commitment to inclusion: The importance of collaboration in gender equity work

Ivory tower in MD/PhD programmes: sticky floor, broken ladder and glass ceiling

The Role of Obstetrics and Gynecology in Shaping Sex-diverse Leadership in Medicine

Association of Physician Characteristics With Perceptions and Experiences of Gender Equity in an Academic Internal Medicine Department

Global evidence of gender equity in academic health research: a scoping review

Addressing Gender-Based Disparities in Earning Potential in Academic Medicine

Satisfaction of Women Faculty in Academic Medicine

Exploring Gender Bias in Six Key Domains of Academic Science: An Adversarial Collaboration

Equal Pay for Equal Work in the Dean Suite: Addressing Occupational Gender Segregation and Compensation Inequities Among Medical School Leadership

Science and Sex—A Bold Agenda for Women’s Health