Sex Diversity in Ophthalmology Leadership in 2020-A Call for Action

Disparities in Promotion and Retention Rates Among Underrepresented in Medicine Faculty in U.S. Ophthalmology Departments

PURPOSE

This study examines the rates and trends of faculty promotions within the field of ophthalmology, with comparative emphasis on the rates of promotion among underrepresented in medicine (URiM) faculty.

DESIGN

A retrospective panel study was conducted using the Association of American Medical Colleges Faculty Roster database.

METHODS

We used the Association of American Medical Colleges Faculty Roster data to assess trends in academic faculty promotions within U.S. ophthalmology departments. Full-time assistant and associate professors appointed between 2000 and 2010 were included in the analysis, and tracked until November 2021 to determine promotion rates. Pearson χ2 and Fisher exact tests were used to evaluate differences in promotion and retention rates based on gender, race and ethnicity, advanced degree, and tenure status.

RESULTS

The demographics of 1436 assistant and 680 associate faculty members were obtained for analysis through the Association of American Medical Colleges. Black faculty had lower promotion rates when compared with White faculty (20% vs 37%, P < .001). Faculty with MD and PhD degrees demonstrated higher promotion rates than faculty with MD degrees alone (59% vs 36%, P < .001). In addition, faculty not on tenure track had lower rates of promotion than those on tenure track (35% vs 48%, P < .001). With respect to faculty retention, among assistant and associate professors combined, Black faculty and faculty without tenure track appointments were more likely to leave academic medicine (46% vs 33%, P < .001) and (36% vs 27%, P < .001), respectively.

CONCLUSION

In this study, promotion rates varied significantly by race/ethnicity. Specifically, Black faculty had lower rates of promotion and retention in academic medicine. These findings underscore the need to explore and implement strategies and policies to address equity in promotion rates and retention of URiM faculty within academic ophthalmology.

Race and Gender Shift among Academic Glaucoma Specialists in the Last 5 Decades

Purpose

To evaluate the demographic composition of academic glaucoma specialists currently practicing in the United States.

Design

Retrospective and observational study.

Subjects

Academic glaucoma specialists identified from ophthalmology residency programs listed on the Doximity database.

Methods

The American Board of Ophthalmology (ABO) membership directory, Doximity database, publicly available data, and direct communications were used to identify academic glaucoma specialists and their demographics. Information collected included-name, gender, race/ethnicity, geographic location, board certification date, academic affiliation, and academic rank. Ophthalmic age was defined as the number of years since ophthalmology board certification. Underrepresented minority (URM) groups were defined as Hispanics, Black or African Americans, Latinos, American Indians, or Alaskan Natives as defined by San Francisco match. In addition, the temporal, geographic, and academic rank distributions among females and URMs were explored.

Main outcome measures

Women and URMs representations among academic glaucoma specialists across academic ranks, geographic regions, as well as ophthalmic age.

Results

There were 457 active academic glaucoma specialists identified from 110 institutions in 38 states. Among them, 185 (40.5%) were women and 42 (9.2%) were URM. The proportion of women glaucoma specialists in academia had increased significantly with a rate of 1.049 in odds ratio (OR) per year (p < 0.001). However, there were no significant changes in the proportion of URMs over time. The earliest year of certification was 1,964 for males and 1,974 for females. When controlled for ophthalmic age, there were no significant differences in the distribution of women or URMs between the different academic ranks (p = 0.572 and p = 0.762, respectively). Among assistant professors, women had a significantly higher ophthalmic age compared to men (p < 0.001), but there was no significant difference in ophthalmic age in both the associate and full professor groups. There were no significant differences in the geographic distribution of gender (p = 0.516) and URM across United States regions (p = 0.238).

Conclusion

The proportion of women among academic glaucoma specialists has significantly increased over the past 5 decades; however, the proportion of URMs has been stagnant in the same period. Enhancing URM representation among academic glaucoma specialists deserves to be a future priority.

How to cite this article

Afzali K, Fujimoto DK, Mohammadi SO, et al. Race and Gender Shift among Academic Glaucoma Specialists in the Last 5 Decades. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 2023;17(2):98-103.

The Extent of Gender Gap in Citations in Ophthalmology Literature

Purpose

To investigate the severity and causes of gender imbalance in the counts of ophthalmology citations.

Methods

The PubMed database was searched to identify cited papers that were published in four journals (Prog Retin Eye Res, Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmol, and Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci) between August 2015 and July 2020, and those that referenced these cited papers by 2021 July (i.e., citing papers). The gender category of a given paper is defined by the gender of the first and last author (MM, FM, MF, and FF; M means male and F means female). A generalized additive model to predict the expected proportion was fitted. The difference between the observed proportion and expected proportion of citations of a paper’s gender category was the primary outcome.

Results

The proportion of female-led (MF and FF) papers slightly increased from 27% in 2015 to 30% in 2020. MM, FM, MF, and FF papers were cited as −9.3, −1.5, 13.0, and 23.9% more than expected, respectively. MM papers cited 13.9% more male-led (MM and FM) papers than female-led papers, and FF papers cited 33.5% fewer male-led papers than female-led papers. The difference between the observed proportion and expected proportion of MM citing papers within male-led and female-led cited papers grew at a rate of 0.13 and 0.67% per year.

Conclusion

The high frequency of citations of female-led papers might narrow the gender gap in the citation count within ophthalmology. These findings show that papers by female-led are less common, so the gender gap might still exist even with their high citation count.

Female Editorial Authorship Trends in High-Impact Ophthalmology Journals

Importance

Individuals with perceived experience and expertise are invited by editorial boards to provide commentary through editorials. Female representation among editorialists is not yet defined.

Objective

To determine female representation as editorial authors in 3 high-impact general ophthalmology journals.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study investigates the proportion of female authorship in editorials published between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019 in 3 journals: Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, and American Journal of Ophthalmology. Data were collected from April to June 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Proportions of female first and senior (last or solo) authors between 2005 to 2009 compared with 2015 to 2019. Secondary outcome measures include representation by sex across degree types and subspecialties. Comparisons were made for all editorialists and ophthalmologist editorialists.

Results

Of 814 editorial articles, there were 1179 (first and senior) authors identified. Women held 301 (25.5%) of these authorships, including 116 of 365 first authorships (32.9%) and 185 of 814 senior authorships (23.9%). Overall, female first and senior authorships grew by 68.0% between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019 (85 of 469 [18.1%] vs 216 of 710 [30.4%]; difference, 12.3%; 95% CI, 7.4-317.2; P < .001). Between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019, first and senior authorships by women increased (first: 33 of 133 [24.8%] vs 83 of 232 [35.8%]; difference, 11.0%; 95% CI, 1.4-320.6; P = .03; senior: 52 of 336 [15.5%] vs 133 of 478 [27.8%]; difference, 12.3%; 95% CI, 6.8-317.9; P < .001). JAMA Ophthalmology most substantially contributed to the increase in female first and senior authorships (13.8% and 16%), although the test for homogeneity among the 3 journals was not significant. The proportion of female ophthalmologist first authors was greater than the proportion of American Board of Ophthalmology-certified female ophthalmologists (81 of 281 [28.9%] vs 123 of 672 [18.3%]; difference, 10.6%; 95% CI, 5.3-315.9; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

The proportion of female senior authors increased by 68.0% between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019, but female authors represented only 25.5% of editorialists. Compared with male ophthalmologists, female ophthalmologists were more commonly first than senior authors. Additionally, female authors were more likely to be nonophthalmologists or to hold nonmedical, non-PhD degrees. While the swelling rank of female editorialists has paralleled the rising proportion of female ophthalmologists over time, parity by sex has yet to be attained. Greater awareness of disparities and strategies to mitigate them may help equalize representation.

Leadership Development in Ophthalmology: Current Impact and Future Needs

Importance There is a lack of peer-reviewed literature on leadership development programs (LDP) in ophthalmology. Research into LDP demographics, outcomes, and methodology is needed.

Objective The aim of the study is to evaluate the extent to which LDPs targeting ophthalmologists meet the needs of emerging leaders.

Design The design type of the study is cross-sectional analysis.

Setting This study involves international setting.

Participants The participants involved were ophthalmologists at any career level.

Methods Routine internet search was used to identify LDPs targeting ophthalmologists. LDPs identified were categorized by the outcome data available into four levels based on prior literature. Participants were assessed using previously validated software for gender (Gender-API, 2020) and race or ethnicity (NamSor, 2020)

Results Nine programs were identified which were classified into LDP generations. The first LDP in ophthalmology was the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) LDP, which served as the nidus for the formation of four multinational LDPs, together forming the Global LDP. These LDPs were similar in size and scope; program size ranging from nine to 30 participants; a length of 1 to 2 years; with similar curricular offerings; with funding primarily derived from cost-sharing with a nominating society. The second generation of ophthalmology LDPs in the United States has targeted female scientists or faculty (Women's LDP by ARVO) and academic ophthalmology leaders (Academic LDP by Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology).

The AAO's LDP appears increasingly diverse with approximately 13% women at inception, gradually increasing from 40 to 65% women in the last 5 years (n = 389). There has also been a notable increase in ethnic diversity.

Conclusion and Relevance AAO LDP is the preeminent leadership training program for ophthalmologists, and it has influenced the creation of a new generation of LDP offerings. There remains a paucity of LDP evaluation metrics and reported outcomes. Newer iterations are successfully targeting academic leadership and attempting to address known disparities in gender and race or ethnicity. Further expansion of LDPs and related research can ensure equity and diversity in the pipeline.

Representation of Women in Vitreoretinal Meeting Faculty Roles from 2015 through 2019

PURPOSE

To describe the proportion of female faculty presenting or moderating at vitreoretinal meetings from 2015 through 2019.

DESIGN

Retrospective trend study.

SUBJECTS

6 highly attended annual national vitreoretinal meetings from 2015 to 2019 (30 total meetings) METHODS: Conference programs were acquired either through online search or directly from meeting organizers and were reviewed and analyzed. Genders of program committee members, first author main podium presenters of papers and nonpaper presenters, main podium panelists, and main podium moderators were recorded. A χ² analysis was performed to compare the proportion of women with podium roles in 2015 and those in each subsequent year until 2019.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

change in proportion of women filling faculty roles in 2015 versus those in 2019.

RESULTS

A total of 4,521 faculty roles were included for analysis. Women filled 22.1% of those roles and were more likely to be included as invited moderators or panelists (25.0%) than as paper (21.4%) or non-paper (19.8%) presenters. Meetings with at least one female program committee member were significantly more likely to include female non-paper presenters (P = .02), moderators or panelists (P = .02), and total women faculty (P < .001). Although there were no significant changes in the proportion of women when comparing consecutive years, the overall trend was for an increased proportion of women faculty, with a significant increase from 19.6% in 2015 to 25.5% in 2019 (P = .002). When the types of faculty roles filled by women were examined, there was a statistically significant increase from 2015 to 2019 in the proportion of abstract presentations (19.7% vs. 25.2%, respectively; P = .045) but a nonstatistically significant increase in invited presentations and moderator or panelist roles.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Women filled less than one-fourth of the main podium faculty roles at vitreoretinal meetings included for analysis over a 5-year period, although there was a significant increase in female representation when 2015 and 2019 participation were compared. Meetings with at least 1 female program committee member filled non-paper podium faculty roles with a significantly greater proportion of women.

Gender Compensation Gap for Ophthalmologists in the First Year of Clinical Practice

PURPOSE

To identify the role of gender and other factors in influencing ophthalmologists' compensation.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

PARTICIPANTS

U.S. practicing ophthalmologists.

METHODS

Between January and March 2020, an anonymous survey was sent to U.S. residency program directors and practicing ophthalmologists who recently completed residency training. Respondents who completed residency ≤ 10 years ago and responded to questions about gender, fellowship training, state of practice, and salary were included. Propensity score match (PSM) analysis was performed with age, academic residency, top residency, fellowship, state median wage, practice type, ethnicity, and number of workdays. Multivariate linear regression (MLR) analysis controlled for additional factors along with the aforementioned variables.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Base starting salary with bonus (SWB) received in the first year of clinical position was the main outcome measure. A multiplier of 1.2 (20%) was added to the base salary to account for bonus.

RESULTS

Of 684 respondents, 384 (56% were female, 44% were male) from 68 programs were included. Female ophthalmologists received a mean initial SWB that was $33 139.80 less than that of their male colleagues (12.5%, P = 0.00). The PSM analysis showed an SWB difference of -$27 273.89 (10.3% gap, P = 0.0015). Additionally, SWB differences were calculated with the number of workdays substituted by operating room (OR) days (-$27 793.67 [10.5% gap, P = 0.0013]) and clinic days (-$23 597.57 [8.90% gap, P = 0.0064]) in separate PSM analyses. The SWB differences between genders were significant using MLR analyses, which also controlled for work, clinic, and OR days separately (-$22 261.49, $-18 604.65, and $-16 191.26, respectively; P = 0.017, P = 0.015, P = 0.002, respectively). Gender independently predicted income in all 3 analyses (P < 0.05). Although an association between gender and the attempt to negotiate was not detected, a greater portion of men subjectively reported success in negotiation (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Female ophthalmologists earn significantly less than their male colleagues in the first year of clinical practice. Salary differences persist after controlling for demographic, educational, and practice type variables with MLR and PSM analyses. These income differences may lead to a substantial loss of accumulated earnings over an individual's career.